Law or Marketing, which is stronger? Pepsico affair

A man who is suing PepsiCo after he said he found a mouse in a can of its Mountain Dew drink is facing an unusual response.

The drinks corporation argues that his claim could not be true because Mountain Dew contains such acidic flame-retardant chemicals that any mouse in the can would have been reduced to an unrecognisable goo.

While the PepsiCo lawyers might think that they are about to enjoy a slam-dunk victory with the assistance of chemical expert testimony, the PepsiCo marketing department might be looking less than happy.

Ronald Ball, an oil company worker from Madison County, Illinois, says he opened a Mountain Dew can from his firm’s vending machine in 2009, drank some, tasted something foul and then, when he poured out more drink, discovered a dead mouse. He put the mouse in a Styrofoam cup and displayed it to his co-workers. His lawyer, Samantha Unsell, said her client immediately called Pepsi so that the company could stop production on the assembly line. She said a Pepsi representative came to collect the dead mouse.

Arguing for a dismissal, PepsiCo cites expert testimony that the mouse would have dissolved in the soda had it been in the can from the time of its bottling until the day the plaintiff drank it.
Mountain Dew, it turns out, contains brominated vegetable oil (BVO), an ingredient banned in drinks in Europe and Japan. The oil contains bromine atoms that weigh down the citrus flavouring so it mixes with sugared water instead of floating to the top. The BVO, therefore, gives the canned drink more consistent flavouring.
However, BVO is not the sort of thing you’d associate with the purity of real mountain dew because it is also added to polystyrene foam cushions in furniture and plastics in electronics to retard chemical reactions that cause fire.

The argument advanced by PepsiCo to have the case dismissed says: “As Dr. McGill explains, if a mouse is submerged in a fluid with the acidity of Mountain Dew, after 4 to 7 days in the fluid the mouse will have no calcium in its bones and bony structures, the mouse’s abdominal structure will rupture, and its cranial cavity (head) is also likely to rupture”.

There are, though, no immediate plans for PepsiCo to use that information in its marketing of the drink.
The PepsiCo statement goes on to say the chemical would eventually cause all of the mouse’s structures to disintegrate into a “jelly-like” substance.

So…

Cuando el Derecho destroza el Marketing: Pepsico… y el ratón

A veces la líneas de marketing de una gran empresa y sus argumentos jurídicos pueden verse, enfrentados.
Ha sido noticia que un ciudadano norteamericano ha presentado una demanda contra la todopoderosa Pepsico. Su reclamación se basa, simple y llanamente que encontró un ratón en un lata de bebida Mountain Dew. La respuesta de la compañía ha sido, sin embargo de lo más inusual.
La corporación bebidas argumenta que los hechos de la demanda no podían ser ciertos en modo alguno, ya que a la composición Mountain Dew se le han añadido ácidos lo suficientemente fuertes para que cualquier ratón, que se encontrara en la lata, se hubiera convertido en una masa totalmente gelatinosa (literal).
La consecuencia es lógica, mientras el departamento legal de PepsiCo sueña con una victoria contundente en los tribunales, con la ayuda de testimonios de expertos químicos, el departamento de marketing está, realmente, menos feliz.
Ronald Ball, un trabajador de la compañía de petróleo de Madison County, Illinois, afirma que abrió una lata de Mountain Dew directamente de la máquina expendedora de su empresa en 2009, bebió un poco, sabía algo mal y luego, descubrió un ratón muerto. Puso el ratón en un vaso de plástico y lo mostró a sus compañeros de trabajo. Su abogado, Samantha Unsell, dijo que su cliente llamó inmediatamente a Pepsi para que la compañía podría detener la producción en la línea de envasado. Afirma incluso que un representante de Pepsi vino a recoger el ratón muerto.
Mientras tanto PepsiCo cita el testimonio de expertos que el ratón se habría disuelto en la bebida desde el momento de su embotellado hasta el día en que el demandante lo bebió. Eso tiene también un explicación… Mountain Dew contiene aceite vegetal bromado (BVO), ingrediente prohibido en las bebidas en Europa y Japón. El aceite contiene átomos de bromo más pesados que el aroma de cítricos por lo que se mezcla con agua azucarada en vez de flotar a la superficie. La ORV, por lo tanto, da la bebida enlatada un sabor más consistente.
Sin embargo, BVO no es el tipo de substancia que uno asociaría con la pureza de la Mountain Dew real, ya que también se agrega a los cojines de espuma de poliestireno en muebles y plásticos en la electrónica para retardar las reacciones químicas.
El argumento esgrimido por PepsiCo para contestar la demanda dice: “Como el Dr. McGill explica, si un ratón se encuentra sumergido en un fluido con la acidez de esta bebida, después de 4 a 7 días en el líquido el ratón no tendrá calcio en su los huesos y las estructuras óseas, la estructura abdominal de los ratón se rompería, y su cavidad craneal (cabeza) también”.
No hay planes inmediatos para PepsiCo de usar esa información en la comercialización de la bebida.

The End of Days… or something

In Malawi, Saduki Mwambene, a 39-year-old bicycle repairman, was prosecuted for predicating the end of the world would occur on May 21, 2011.

He had circulated documents saying that the “Rapture” on May 21 would mean doom for all.

The prosecution opened the case in early May and argued that the documents threatened the peace and security of citizens. The court had to defer the hearing until after the May 21, however, to prove that the Mwambene’s prediction was false.

May 21 came and went, the world still existed, so Mwanbene pleaded guilty and was given a six-month sentence.

This is it…

Judicial Dangerous Lifestyle

Senior judge J. C. from Georgia, in the US, was prosecuted for various aspects of his lifestyle.

The judge, it turned out, was a habitual user of cocaine, marijuana, synthetic heroin and hookers; and he carried two loaded handguns during drug deals. He was convicted of a number of serious offences.

As part of his plea in mitigation of sentence, Camp said that he had suffered from brain damage after a cycling accident in 2000. Since that year, the US District Senior Judge presided in more than 3,000 cases.

So there are many convicts and defeated civil litigants who want to know whether they can challenge a decision made by a judge who now claims that he was brain-damaged for the whole of the past decade.