Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (313787)	12/19/2024 4:54:32 PM
From: Doo	Respond to of 361645

I note you cited no case law. On what? The conclusion you posted that a newspaper is a "good" under UCC Article 2? I thought it wasn't, and believe I'm correct and what you have there reads like some AI thingy, which is fine. I accept that, for now. A newspaper is within the definition of "goods." I wasn't sitting here with some gotcha case on the issue. I invited you to research it. You did. Fine. But that doesn't mean that a newspaper company is liable for consumer fraud due to content. I have no doubt you realize there is an entire body of well-established law on that topic, and Trump's lawyers have no shot at a claim under those theories or they'd have filed them. So, we are back to the question you face next, in the minutiae of the law. Is "content" of a newspaper actionable under a state's consumer fraud statute, in this case Iowa's? If the content is "goods," then perhaps -- still have that problem of lack of specificity in the damages pleading which, at this point, if not cured is fatal to the case. Oh, and the fact that Trump is not the "Trump Campaign," so another problem.