<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dram Shop Liability (for Lousy Drinks)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/</link>
	<description>a law student blog written by students at the catholic university of america, columbus school of law ::fighting the hypo, so you don&#039;t have to::</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:27:11 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Bombay</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-137</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Bombay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-137</guid>
		<description>What about rescission as an equitable remedy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about rescission as an equitable remedy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casebook Sherpa</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Casebook Sherpa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-136</guid>
		<description>But the issue was whether Dr. Bombay has waived his right to rescission (though I admittedly muddied the water by introducing the &quot;benefit of the bargain&quot; terminology). Once he keeps the drink he has substantially performed. At that point, he can sue for damages, but not rescission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But the issue was whether Dr. Bombay has waived his right to rescission (though I admittedly muddied the water by introducing the &#8220;benefit of the bargain&#8221; terminology). Once he keeps the drink he has substantially performed. At that point, he can sue for damages, but not rescission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Bombay</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Bombay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-133</guid>
		<description>I think I do, and the Blackie&#039;s lesson is instructive. If the representitive from Coke didn&#039;t specify the booze (just the mixer) and still had a cause of action for not receiving the benefit of the bargain, I certainly would have one for not getting the right mixer and having it made like crap.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I do, and the Blackie&#8217;s lesson is instructive. If the representitive from Coke didn&#8217;t specify the booze (just the mixer) and still had a cause of action for not receiving the benefit of the bargain, I certainly would have one for not getting the right mixer and having it made like crap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-132</guid>
		<description>But wouldn&#039;t the doctor still be able to sue of the difference between the drink he ordered and the drink he got, otherwise he did not receive the benefit of his bargain</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But wouldn&#8217;t the doctor still be able to sue of the difference between the drink he ordered and the drink he got, otherwise he did not receive the benefit of his bargain</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casebook Sherpa</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>Casebook Sherpa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-124</guid>
		<description>Anonymous:

Yes. Substantial performance (in the act of keeping the drink and, presumably, drinking it) would waive the good Doctor&#039;s right to rescind. This action would, in essence, affirm the bargain made with the bartender and constitute an action granting the legitimacy of the bargain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous:</p>
<p>Yes. Substantial performance (in the act of keeping the drink and, presumably, drinking it) would waive the good Doctor&#8217;s right to rescind. This action would, in essence, affirm the bargain made with the bartender and constitute an action granting the legitimacy of the bargain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Do you waive your right to rescission by not sending it back?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you waive your right to rescission by not sending it back?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Bombay</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Bombay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-121</guid>
		<description>No argument from me. It&#039;s her home town, so I think she sould take the lead in all beverage related disputes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No argument from me. It&#8217;s her home town, so I think she sould take the lead in all beverage related disputes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casebook Sherpa</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Casebook Sherpa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:59:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-120</guid>
		<description>We now see who wears the pants in this relationship. The Good Doctor frets about whether he had a cause of action and Goody simply says we should have manned up and gotten new drinks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We now see who wears the pants in this relationship. The Good Doctor frets about whether he had a cause of action and Goody simply says we should have manned up and gotten new drinks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Goody Bombay</title>
		<link>http://fightthehypo.com/2008/04/07/dram-shop-liability-for-lousy-drinks/comment-page-1/#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Goody Bombay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fightthehypo.com/?p=119#comment-119</guid>
		<description>While I must admit bias in terms of thinking highly of the good Doctor on a personal level, I feel it important to my sense of duty as a witness to add to the testimony that the drinks were, indeed, dissapointing on several performance points - particularly from a martini bar.  Having worked in the food service industry I often find myself unable to voice a complaint, as I recognize the daily variations that occur in such esablishments, and the general harrassment that such staff may face on a daily basis.  That said, I realize now, hindsight being 20-20, that we were within our rights to request an adjustment to our cocktails, if not a new version of said cocktails.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I must admit bias in terms of thinking highly of the good Doctor on a personal level, I feel it important to my sense of duty as a witness to add to the testimony that the drinks were, indeed, dissapointing on several performance points &#8211; particularly from a martini bar.  Having worked in the food service industry I often find myself unable to voice a complaint, as I recognize the daily variations that occur in such esablishments, and the general harrassment that such staff may face on a daily basis.  That said, I realize now, hindsight being 20-20, that we were within our rights to request an adjustment to our cocktails, if not a new version of said cocktails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
