I don't think it's mental gymnastics. The key fact of what I'm trying to argue here, and the lawsuit against mcdonald's, is that at the time, McDonald's was kee

I don't think it's mental gymnastics. The key fact of what I'm trying to argue here, and the lawsuit against mcdonald's, is that at the time, McDonald's was keeping the resting temperature of the coffee far too hot. Not only far hotter than any other location in the same town that sold coffee, but also, as I'm trying to demonstrate, hotter than coffee produced in a normal pour-over process. It's unreasonable for customers to assume that McDonald's coffee is significantly hotter than every other coffee on the market, and also hotter than fresh coffee they make themselves at home. I don't really have strong opinions on the "McDonald's kept the coffee near boiling so that people wouldn't request refills in store" bit, since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as black coffee is dirt cheap and making it hotter only encourages people to consume more cream, which is expensive. Reasoning aside though, it's pretty obvious why McDonald's was found liable.