On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 07:54:00 -0800, "Mimi" wrote:
>
>"The Reid" wrote in message
>news:75fvn2dre9dstts64phtmhm85nbitq6lda@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:50 +0000,
>> this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
>> the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:
>>
>>>handing over a
>>>loyalty card (I refuse to use them)
>>
>> takes about one second and they send me quite reasonable amounts of
>> money in return for knowing what I buy, seems a good deal to me.
>> --
>
>There was a case here in the US. A man was at the supermarket, slipped on
>some spilled milk and fell. He was hurt and sued the store. They used his
>buying records (obtained because he had a "loyalty" card) to demonstrate he
>bought quantities of liquor, beer, etc., so therefore likely slipped because
>he was drunk.
That sounds a bit far fetched to me. How could they establish he was
drunk just from his purchasing habits, and that he fell because of
this?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
-- |