im not backing wal mart in this but the law is the law, what are you going to do about it?
ok boycott wal mart...the 30 bucks you spend there isnt going to break them
just like people that want to boycott gas stations but fill up there everyday so they can drive their cars
good luck with that boycott
everyone knows wal mart sucks
i have no delusional thoughts that my conscious decision to not shop at walmart will "break" them. Quite the opposite. i know very well that it will not. They made 300 billion last year and my very small contribution to that is unnoticeable. Boycotts, as an effective means of accomplishing a goal, must be vast in their scope and i don't see that happening.
My decision is simply for personal satisfaction. i, PERSONALLY, will feel a little bit better knowing i didn't spend a single penny of MY money there. Knowing that i didn't sacrifice ethics and personal values to save a couple of pennies, is rewarding to ME.
As far as the law, i've already acknowledged the fact that the law is on their side. They are well within their legal RIGHTS. i'm not arguing legality here. i'm unconcerned with it. What i'm arguing are morals and ethics. The fine print in the contract states walmarts legal RIGHT to sue. It doesn't mandate that they do so, however. What it does is give them the option of doing so if they choose. Their choice to do so in this case is completely unethical and immoral. There is no way to defend their decision without completely divorcing oneself from any sense of ethics and morals. You seem completely comfortable in going forward with that divorce. Good luck with THAT.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Most insurance plans nowadays have the same clause. The husband of the woman was hoping that Walmart would show some compation. Walmart said that they were showing compation by settling for less than the full amount owed. I have to agree with Walmart. Read the fine print before you sign up with a particular insurance carrier. Walmart is well within their rights. That's what they won in court. A contract is a contract.
they have classically had that same clause. the problem here is that they received a 1M settlement and the lawyers took over half of it...who is the real bad guy here...i say both!
Did no one know she would have to pay Wal-mart back? Not even her lawyers? If they did why didn't they sue for 1 million for herself plus for long term care plus an extra 470,000 to pay for the medical expenses she would end up owing walmart. One of her lawyers should have figured this into the settlement money she had asked for.
Did no one know she would have to pay Wal-mart back? Not even her lawyers? If they did why didn't they sue for 1 million for herself plus for long term care plus an extra 470,000 to pay for the medical expenses she would end up owing walmart. One of her lawyers should have figured this into the settlement money she had asked for.
Good point. That's why I would blame the attorney before I would blame Walmart. Walmart is just doing what is legally within their rights.
i have no delusional thoughts that my conscious decision to not shop at walmart will "break" them. Quite the opposite. i know very well that it will not. They made 300 billion last year and my very small contribution to that is unnoticeable. Boycotts, as an effective means of accomplishing a goal, must be vast in their scope and i don't see that happening.
My decision is simply for personal satisfaction. i, PERSONALLY, will feel a little bit better knowing i didn't spend a single penny of MY money there. Knowing that i didn't sacrifice ethics and personal values to save a couple of pennies, is rewarding to ME.
As far as the law, i've already acknowledged the fact that the law is on their side. They are well within their legal RIGHTS. i'm not arguing legality here. i'm unconcerned with it. What i'm arguing are morals and ethics. The fine print in the contract states walmarts legal RIGHT to sue. It doesn't mandate that they do so, however. What it does is give them the option of doing so if they choose. Their choice to do so in this case is completely unethical and immoral. There is no way to defend their decision without completely divorcing oneself from any sense of ethics and morals. You seem completely comfortable in going forward with that divorce. Good luck with THAT.
Because it was in the contract. Ergo, someone signed and agreed to it.
The other reason is, for me at least, because if it truly is completely abnormal and lacking in legitimacy, case law allows the offended party to claim unconscionability and the court will strike the contract as invalid.
So in theory, if this is truly unconscionable (as you seem to suggest), and the defense can prove it so, then the lady will not be forced to remit repayment to Walmart.
so, do YOU think this clause is "unconscionable" ?
so, do YOU think this clause is "unconscionable" ?
no. not really.
i'd be interested to hear a judge or jury's take on it.
However, I suspect they would find nothing unconscionable about it.
You do understand the intention of this clause right?
This is not much different from the way standard auto insurance policies are handled. If you are covered for damages in a car crash through your own provider, but SOMEONE ELSE hits you, WHO pays out the damages?
Your provider
or THEIRS?
In almost ALL such cases, either the LIABLE party pays out the damages, or your insurance covers you directly,
but then seeks REPAYMENT from the LIABLE PARTY'S insurer.
That's just how it works.
In this case, Walmart provided the lady with coverage, and they held good on their word.
However, when they found out that not only had they provided this coverage (400+ thousand dollars), but SO HAD THE LIABLE PARTY, obviously they were a bit put off. I'm not saying it isn't heartless, but it certainly makes sense. Walmart covered their employees expenses, even when the incident was something that occured because of another person's liability.
In this case the woman in question actualy received DOUBLE PAYMENT. The better question would be, if the lawsuit disbursement was for REAL DAMAGES (which it was, you don't get lawsuit money just because, its paid out only on assessed REAL DAMAGES incurred) ... so, if this woman already received a payout from the LIABLE party based on real damages, WHY then should Walmart also be on the hook to cover the loss? THE LIABLE PARTY ALREADY COVERED THE COSTS.
Basicaly, the argument you would have to put forth here is that this lady simply deserves to collect double because goddamnit, walmart just doesn't need it, and it sure would be the nice thing to do.
Well hell, i agree with you, it sure would be nice.
But come on now, this is the REAL world.
Now, CORNNIFER, Walmart did NOT make $300 BILLION last year or ANY year for that matter.
Walmarts NET AFTER TAX EARNINGS PER ANNUM:
12.8 BILLION for '07
up incrementaly year over year from
8.8 BILLION in '04
That may look like a 40% increase in profit in 3 years,
but inflation adjusted (30% dollar loss since '03) we are talking about a modest 15% net increase in operating income.
10 billion isn't chump change,
but it sure the fuck is not 300billion,
in fact it's only 3% of 300billion.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Walmarts NET AFTER TAX EARNINGS PER ANNUM:
12.8 BILLION for '07
up incrementaly year over year from
8.8 BILLION in '04
That may look like a 40% increase in profit in 3 years,
but inflation adjusted (30% dollar loss since '03) we are talking about a modest 15% net increase in operating income.
10 billion isn't chump change,
but it sure the fuck is not 300billion,
in fact it's only 3% of 300billion.
:cool:
I was assuming he was exaggerating on purpose. but who knows. good job pointing this out.
You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.
Does this post of yours make you any less "sick" than them?
Its a horrible story. Its a tragic shame. But it shouldnt come as a surprise. Thats what the fine print in contracts is for.
I was assuming he was exaggerating on purpose. but who knows. good job pointing this out.
Bullshit that it is a good job of pointing it out. What difference does it make to your views. 300 billion or 12.8 billion makes jack shit worth of difference on your stance on the subject. Either she has to pay Walmart back the money in your opinion or she doesn't.
Fuck me in the brain, why does everything here have to be picked to tiny little pieces when it places NO releveance on your overall thoughts on the issues. It takes away from Cornifers initial intention of the post. You don't give a fuck about what he is really trying to get across here, all you wanna do is prove him wrong in one thing he said that should have no impact on your decision ANYWAY. It's pathetic and childish and you really, really need to find more things to do with your time. Are you saying that if it WAS 300 billion you would have a different take on the matter? NO you wouldn't.
Some of you just love fighting for the sake of fighting.
Does this post of yours make you any less "sick" than them?
Its a horrible story. Its a tragic shame. But it shouldnt come as a surprise. Thats what the fine print in contracts is for.
Again, the fine print states that they reserve the legal OPTION of recovering money paid. It doesn't MANDATE that they do so. It would be different if she slipped on some ice, broke her leg, and settled with the city. Most people aren't planning on getting plowed by a truck and rendered severely brain damaged when they sign up for health insurance. They just want to be able to see a doctor if they're sick or twist their ankle. Legality does not trump ethics in my opinion.
BTW, i didn't wish ill will on anyone. In fact i made it clear that i wished none.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I'm convinced the only people who shop at Wal-Mart are the uneducated and/or the anti-Americans.
You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.
They likely have no say in the matter. Walmart is not likely involved whatsoever with the case, rather the insurance company.
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
20-30% compared to where??? Their prices are not that great, but I can see that their marketing campaign works well.
I shop there occasionally because of the convenience, but besides the disposable, piss-poor quality store brand stuff, normal things are about the same price just about everywhere. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
their prices are hard to beat...until they wipe out the small guys in the area.
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
Too bad. Why even have a contract then if you're not going to honor it when the time comes? Let's just treat each person with how we feel that day or with our emotions.
Yeah, how foolish and utterly stupid would that be? Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? Who in his right mind would give the money back so a severely brain damaged woman, a recoving cancer patient, who's working two jobs and is struggling to pay the bills and their son who won't be going to college can have at least a part of their life back. So they can at least pay some medical bills.
Cornnifer, you are so naive and dumb. They had a contract. Who would put people, real people, with real lives and real problems above a contract? The madness! Who would not take the money and let them sink deeper into despair and poverty? We can't just deal with people like they're people! No room for compassion in this world. They signed a contract!
i'm sure everyone has heard this story by now, but, i'll include a link anyway. In the past i've questioned walmart but stopped short of saying i would never shop there. i have finally declared that i will never spend another red cent there. This is some horrible shit. What greedy bastards.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
pretty cut and dry people there should be no pity.
You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.
now who's the sick bastard? welcome to the real world Pollyanna.
i'm sure everyone has heard this story by now, but, i'll include a link anyway. In the past i've questioned walmart but stopped short of saying i would never shop there. i have finally declared that i will never spend another red cent there. This is some horrible shit. What greedy bastards.
Again, the fine print states that they reserve the legal OPTION of recovering money paid. It doesn't MANDATE that they do so. It would be different if she slipped on some ice, broke her leg, and settled with the city. Most people aren't planning on getting plowed by a truck and rendered severely brain damaged when they sign up for health insurance. They just want to be able to see a doctor if they're sick or twist their ankle. Legality does not trump ethics in my opinion.
BTW, i didn't wish ill will on anyone. In fact i made it clear that i wished none.
Tho you did state you'd laugh your ass off if it did. Kinda the same
Bullshit that it is a good job of pointing it out. What difference does it make to your views. 300 billion or 12.8 billion makes jack shit worth of difference on your stance on the subject. Either she has to pay Walmart back the money in your opinion or she doesn't.
Fuck me in the brain, why does everything here have to be picked to tiny little pieces when it places NO releveance on your overall thoughts on the issues. It takes away from Cornifers initial intention of the post. You don't give a fuck about what he is really trying to get across here, all you wanna do is prove him wrong in one thing he said that should have no impact on your decision ANYWAY. It's pathetic and childish and you really, really need to find more things to do with your time. Are you saying that if it WAS 300 billion you would have a different take on the matter? NO you wouldn't.
Some of you just love fighting for the sake of fighting.
whoa, easy there gurl. I happen to think it is relevant. that is just my opinion. saying they make 300 billion has a deeper impact psychologically in regards to their size. I'm childish and pathetic? I'm not even the one who pointed it out. CHILL THE FUCK OUT! please direct your childish and pathetic posts to driftininthestorm.
whoa, easy there gurl. I happen to think it is relevant. that is just my opinion. saying they make 300 billion has a deeper impact psychologically in regards to their size. I'm childish and pathetic? I'm not even the one who pointed it out. CHILL THE FUCK OUT! please direct your childish and pathetic posts to driftininthestorm.
I'm gonna go ahead and nip this one in the bud right now, before this gets out of hand.
Bullshit that it is a good job of pointing it out. What difference does it make to your views. 300 billion or 12.8 billion makes jack shit worth of difference on your stance on the subject. Either she has to pay Walmart back the money in your opinion or she doesn't.
Fuck me in the brain, why does everything here have to be picked to tiny little pieces when it places NO releveance on your overall thoughts on the issues. It takes away from Cornifers initial intention of the post. You don't give a fuck about what he is really trying to get across here, all you wanna do is prove him wrong in one thing he said that should have no impact on your decision ANYWAY. It's pathetic and childish and you really, really need to find more things to do with your time. Are you saying that if it WAS 300 billion you would have a different take on the matter? NO you wouldn't.
Some of you just love fighting for the sake of fighting.
Don't you dare put this back on me for CORRECTING AN ERROR OF FACT.
Legally, yes, they are within their rights. We're talking about a company that made 300 BILLION last year. Answer me this. WHY should they pursue this now handicapped woman for apx. 275 grand? 275 grand that obviously is nothing to them, but money this woman was counting on to support her and her care for the rest of her life! Her husband has legally divorced her so that she could recieve more medicaid, he works two jobs to pay for her care, is losing his car, is unable to send their son to college. Walmart made 300 BILLION last year alone! They may have te LEGAL RIGHT to sue her for what amounts to a few pennies for them, but they have absolutely no moral or ethical integrity in doing so. They have the legal RIGHT, but not the legal OBLIGATION. This shit is sick. Your defense of them, IMO, is even worse. There is no way to defend this nauseating bullshit.
Cornnifer is seemingly basing an ENTIRE argument for Walmart not collecting on their contractual perrogative on ... what? ... ON THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT EARNED by Walmart per year.
Now.
Pj_Gurl, while i am probably willing to agree with you that at a certain point it is not that relevant specificaly how huge that sum is, it is intellectualy dishonest of you to sit here and berate me for correcting an error that is on its face directly connected to the original argument posed. Further that error was to the tune of a 2300% distortion of Walmarts actual net profit.
If you are having trouble understanding why the AMOUNT of their profit does "matter" in the context of Cornnifer's argument, ask yourself this: AT WHAT DOLLAR VALUE PROFIT WOULD YOU NOT BE OFFENDED AT WALMART?
In other words, if with Walmart making $13billion a year their actions in this case are a grave offense on human nature, how much less would they have to be making for their concern in this case to be "justified" by you.
Putting the argument in these terms helps to identify the subjective nature of the argument posed, and therefore the relevance of the amount of profit Walmart receives.
And notice MY post had NO HATEFUL OR SPITEFUL WORDS in it. I was merely pointing out an error of fact. To the contrary, Pj_Gurl, you are calling people out for "not giving a fuck" and slinging around words like "pathetic" and "childish".
Pathetic and childish?
I was merely pointing out for clarification to ALL who may be reading this thread, that they should not base any consideration on the idea that Walmart is making $300 billion a year, because that is a patent distortion of fact. A GROSS distortion of fact.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
i have no delusional thoughts that my conscious decision to not shop at walmart will "break" them. Quite the opposite. i know very well that it will not. They made 300 billion last year and my very small contribution to that is unnoticeable. Boycotts, as an effective means of accomplishing a goal, must be vast in their scope and i don't see that happening.
My decision is simply for personal satisfaction. i, PERSONALLY, will feel a little bit better knowing i didn't spend a single penny of MY money there. Knowing that i didn't sacrifice ethics and personal values to save a couple of pennies, is rewarding to ME.
As far as the law, i've already acknowledged the fact that the law is on their side. They are well within their legal RIGHTS. i'm not arguing legality here. i'm unconcerned with it. What i'm arguing are morals and ethics. The fine print in the contract states walmarts legal RIGHT to sue. It doesn't mandate that they do so, however. What it does is give them the option of doing so if they choose. Their choice to do so in this case is completely unethical and immoral. There is no way to defend their decision without completely divorcing oneself from any sense of ethics and morals. You seem completely comfortable in going forward with that divorce. Good luck with THAT.
they have classically had that same clause. the problem here is that they received a 1M settlement and the lawyers took over half of it...who is the real bad guy here...i say both!
from my window to yours
Good point. That's why I would blame the attorney before I would blame Walmart. Walmart is just doing what is legally within their rights.
we would all be unemployed........
walking around with no clothes on our back...
no food in or refrigerators....
no furniture....
blah blah blah.......
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
no. not really.
i'd be interested to hear a judge or jury's take on it.
However, I suspect they would find nothing unconscionable about it.
You do understand the intention of this clause right?
This is not much different from the way standard auto insurance policies are handled. If you are covered for damages in a car crash through your own provider, but SOMEONE ELSE hits you, WHO pays out the damages?
Your provider
or THEIRS?
In almost ALL such cases, either the LIABLE party pays out the damages, or your insurance covers you directly,
but then seeks REPAYMENT from the LIABLE PARTY'S insurer.
That's just how it works.
In this case, Walmart provided the lady with coverage, and they held good on their word.
However, when they found out that not only had they provided this coverage (400+ thousand dollars), but SO HAD THE LIABLE PARTY, obviously they were a bit put off. I'm not saying it isn't heartless, but it certainly makes sense. Walmart covered their employees expenses, even when the incident was something that occured because of another person's liability.
In this case the woman in question actualy received DOUBLE PAYMENT. The better question would be, if the lawsuit disbursement was for REAL DAMAGES (which it was, you don't get lawsuit money just because, its paid out only on assessed REAL DAMAGES incurred) ... so, if this woman already received a payout from the LIABLE party based on real damages, WHY then should Walmart also be on the hook to cover the loss? THE LIABLE PARTY ALREADY COVERED THE COSTS.
Basicaly, the argument you would have to put forth here is that this lady simply deserves to collect double because goddamnit, walmart just doesn't need it, and it sure would be the nice thing to do.
Well hell, i agree with you, it sure would be nice.
But come on now, this is the REAL world.
Now, CORNNIFER, Walmart did NOT make $300 BILLION last year or ANY year for that matter.
Walmart's Financial statements ... click on "Income Statement" top left if it defaults to Balance Sheet.
Walmarts NET AFTER TAX EARNINGS PER ANNUM:
12.8 BILLION for '07
up incrementaly year over year from
8.8 BILLION in '04
That may look like a 40% increase in profit in 3 years,
but inflation adjusted (30% dollar loss since '03) we are talking about a modest 15% net increase in operating income.
10 billion isn't chump change,
but it sure the fuck is not 300billion,
in fact it's only 3% of 300billion.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I was assuming he was exaggerating on purpose. but who knows. good job pointing this out.
No.
He was quoting their top line GROSS SALES number,
and misrepresenting (misinterpreting?) it as NET PROFIT.
There is a big chunk that comes out of that $300 billion,
and its called COST OF GOODS \ COST OF REVENUE.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Does this post of yours make you any less "sick" than them?
Its a horrible story. Its a tragic shame. But it shouldnt come as a surprise. Thats what the fine print in contracts is for.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
COGS
Fuck me in the brain, why does everything here have to be picked to tiny little pieces when it places NO releveance on your overall thoughts on the issues. It takes away from Cornifers initial intention of the post. You don't give a fuck about what he is really trying to get across here, all you wanna do is prove him wrong in one thing he said that should have no impact on your decision ANYWAY. It's pathetic and childish and you really, really need to find more things to do with your time. Are you saying that if it WAS 300 billion you would have a different take on the matter? NO you wouldn't.
Some of you just love fighting for the sake of fighting.
Again, the fine print states that they reserve the legal OPTION of recovering money paid. It doesn't MANDATE that they do so. It would be different if she slipped on some ice, broke her leg, and settled with the city. Most people aren't planning on getting plowed by a truck and rendered severely brain damaged when they sign up for health insurance. They just want to be able to see a doctor if they're sick or twist their ankle. Legality does not trump ethics in my opinion.
BTW, i didn't wish ill will on anyone. In fact i made it clear that i wished none.
The lawsuit settlement should be for the recovery of not only medical expenses, but also for the future care and quality of life of the victim.
The money owed to Walmart should've been factored into the settlement in addition to trust funds for future use.
Either the lawyer took that extra chunk for himself or he just forgot to mention the insurance clause when asking for damages.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
They likely have no say in the matter. Walmart is not likely involved whatsoever with the case, rather the insurance company.
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
their prices are hard to beat...until they wipe out the small guys in the area.
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
Yeah, how foolish and utterly stupid would that be? Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? Who in his right mind would give the money back so a severely brain damaged woman, a recoving cancer patient, who's working two jobs and is struggling to pay the bills and their son who won't be going to college can have at least a part of their life back. So they can at least pay some medical bills.
Cornnifer, you are so naive and dumb. They had a contract. Who would put people, real people, with real lives and real problems above a contract? The madness! Who would not take the money and let them sink deeper into despair and poverty? We can't just deal with people like they're people! No room for compassion in this world. They signed a contract!
naděje umírá poslední
pretty cut and dry people there should be no pity.
little perspective for ya.
Tho you did state you'd laugh your ass off if it did. Kinda the same
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Both travesties if you ask me.
naděje umírá poslední
Yeah. i don't really see the point in trying to justify one unethical action by pointing to another one.
whoa, easy there gurl. I happen to think it is relevant. that is just my opinion. saying they make 300 billion has a deeper impact psychologically in regards to their size. I'm childish and pathetic? I'm not even the one who pointed it out. CHILL THE FUCK OUT! please direct your childish and pathetic posts to driftininthestorm.
I'm gonna go ahead and nip this one in the bud right now, before this gets out of hand.
Don't you dare put this back on me for CORRECTING AN ERROR OF FACT.
Lets look at what i was responding to:
Cornnifer is seemingly basing an ENTIRE argument for Walmart not collecting on their contractual perrogative on ... what? ... ON THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT EARNED by Walmart per year.
Now.
Pj_Gurl, while i am probably willing to agree with you that at a certain point it is not that relevant specificaly how huge that sum is, it is intellectualy dishonest of you to sit here and berate me for correcting an error that is on its face directly connected to the original argument posed. Further that error was to the tune of a 2300% distortion of Walmarts actual net profit.
If you are having trouble understanding why the AMOUNT of their profit does "matter" in the context of Cornnifer's argument, ask yourself this: AT WHAT DOLLAR VALUE PROFIT WOULD YOU NOT BE OFFENDED AT WALMART?
In other words, if with Walmart making $13billion a year their actions in this case are a grave offense on human nature, how much less would they have to be making for their concern in this case to be "justified" by you.
Putting the argument in these terms helps to identify the subjective nature of the argument posed, and therefore the relevance of the amount of profit Walmart receives.
And notice MY post had NO HATEFUL OR SPITEFUL WORDS in it. I was merely pointing out an error of fact. To the contrary, Pj_Gurl, you are calling people out for "not giving a fuck" and slinging around words like "pathetic" and "childish".
Pathetic and childish?
I was merely pointing out for clarification to ALL who may be reading this thread, that they should not base any consideration on the idea that Walmart is making $300 billion a year, because that is a patent distortion of fact. A GROSS distortion of fact.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?