Comments on: “Shrimp suit doesn’t hold water”

By: Bill Alexander

Bill Alexander — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:59:30 +0000

Actually, if the product was labeled net weight 1.0 pound to include one pound of shrimp and the actual weight was 1.1 pound, weights and measures would fine them. I wondered why it was illegal to purposely supply more than the stated weight until a friend in the food industry explained that it was to prevent them from making the competitor look underweight.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:21:32 +0000

If this Costco product was called a ‘16 oz. shrimp, lettuce, tomato, and lemon combo’ dish that would be one thing.

Aren’t the lettuce, tomato, and lemon what differentiate “shrimp” and a “shrimp platter?”

Secondly, why would anyone expect that a package labeled “net weight 1.0 pound” would have ingredients weighing more than a pound in the box?

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:20:32 +0000

Before the heart attack, I frequented the local rodizio which sells there dinners “All-you-can-eat” or by the pound. You can imagine my chagrin when I found my ‘by the pound’ price to be almost double the all-you-can-eat price. How can that be?

The weight of the plate was included each time.

Another question for all. When/if you buy a one pound portion of fried shrimp in a basket, (yes, I expect that the breading/batter on the shrimp is included in the weight), would you expect the number of shrimp included to be ‘pro-rated’ by whether you asked for extra lemon or tarter/cocktail sauce? ‘Sure, you can get 2 extra cups of sauce, but I’ll have to take back a shrimp’

I am not as horrified by this suit as others seem to be.

If this Costco product was called a ’16 oz. shrimp, lettuce, tomato, and lemon combo’ dish that would be one thing. Does anyone think that the intent of Costco’s marketing scheme for this product is to not mislead the consumer into believing that he or she is purchasing a pound of shrimp?

My position is that the company absolutely knew and intended this to be a deception (and they likely know to the penny the financial benefit such a scheme will garner the corporate coffers)

By: Crash

Crash — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:53:41 +0000

When I buy a pound of bananas, I really only get about half that weight of edible fruit, as it is customary to discard the peel. Similarly, the core of an apple is inedible, so every pound of apples I buy contains less than a pound of usable fruit. The same is true for melons, peaches, nectarines, pineapples, coconuts, and so on. And yet, store after store continues to charge for fruit by gross weight.

I’m thinking this is a shoo-in for a class action suit. After all, who among us is exempt from the class that has been so damaged by this odious practice? I anxiously await the brave soul that will be the champion of us all and rescue us from this oppression.

By: ps

ps — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:26:15 +0000

Alas, the first port of call for too many people is “class action”, aided and abetted by lawyers who can smell money in a manure pile 10 miles away. Maybe if sanctions equaled the amount being sued for, far fewer idiot cases would ever make it out of the plaintiff lawyer’s imagination.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:11:25 +0000

In reply to Dave Lincoln.

That wasn’t just any plaintiff’s lawyer, though, that was Lionel Hutz, in his biggest case since his class action against the makers of “The Neverending Story.” — TF

By: Dave Lincoln

Dave Lincoln — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:19 +0000

Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Mrs. Simpson, what did your husband do next. I remind you, YOU ARE UNDER OATH!

Marge Simpson: Well … he drove around until 3 in the morning …. (sobs) looking for another seafood restaurant (breaks down crying) …

Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, does this sound like a man who has had “all he can eat”? I rest my case.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:00:48 +0000

More judges should use their discretion this way to disallow these plainly frivolous suits.

By: PhilG

PhilG — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:47:25 +0000

In the court document, his attorneys say
“Indeed, generally next to or near the Shrimp Trays in the
cooler unit are comparable black bottom/clear top containers of prepared shrimp salad for sale
– presumably made from the same shrimp as included in the Shrimp Trays – which containers
are each individually weighed and sold for a price based on the exact net weight and
prescribed price per pound (currently approximately $5.99).”
So the attorneys seem to be saying that the consumer is being given a full 16 ounces of shrimp in the shrimp salad when the shrimp salad container says it contains 16 ounces. But don’t his attorneys know that shrimp salad also contains other ingredients such as mayonnaise at least and so the shrimp salad also does not contain a full 16 ounces of shrimp in a container labeled at 16 ounces? So, according to the attorneys’ arguments, Costco is also cheating its customers when it sells them shrimp salad. and it is cheating them when it sells any “salad”, such as tuna salad, egg salad, etc. In fact, according to the attorneys’ arguments, all supermarkets everywhere are cheating their customers when they sell any products ground up into a “salad” with other ingredients. I think this calls for a huge class action against all supermarkets everywhere!

By: VMS

VMS — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:22:34 +0000

“Judge Colleen McMahon slammed the complaint as ‘simply ridiculous’ because the weight ‘took into account both the shrimp and the sauce, never mind the lemon wedges and lettuce also included in the package.'”

Judge McMahon is correct! Just look at the ingredients on the package label that Plaintiff was kind enough to attach to his complaint. As long as the total net package weight was 1.00 lbs. or greater (which it probably was), there is no claim. In fact I laud Costco for putting in 13.5 oz. of shrimp in a prepackaged 1 lb. convenience platter with only 2.5 oz. of condiments and other ingredients. $9.99 sounds like a great deal to me.

I don’t quite understand why two law firms spent so much time on this obvious loser of a case, possibly crossing the line into sanctionable conduct.

There is no fraud here. Mr. Verzani should not buy Costco’s shrimp platter in the future if he does not think it’s a good deal. If Mr. Verzani truly had a non meeting of the minds, and he somehow thought that he was getting 16 oz. of shrimp, he would be entitled to 13.5/16 * $9.99 = $1.56 at most. Better yet, if he simply brought the platter back to the store, I’m 100% sure that Costco would have refunded his $9.99 in full.

If a store or manufacturer were truly cheating on the net weight of its product, then I see no problem with a class action lawsuit in addition to the enforcement by the weights and measures department of the appropriate governmental authority. But this is not that case.