Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the couple
themselves.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:55:34 +0000, johannes wrote:

Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the
couple themselves.

I noticed in the report I read, their ages were not listed. Strange
because in almost all other news reports the ages of the subjects are
displayed.

On 23 Nov, 10:55, johannes wrote:
Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the couple
themselves.

this is america.


anything could happen in the next 5 minutes etc etc etc.

didds

In message
,
didds writes
On 23 Nov, 10:55, johannes wrote:
Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the couple
themselves.

this is america.


anything could happen in the next 5 minutes etc etc etc.

didds

As usual, one key point is omitted from many of the comments on the
story. A member of McDonalds staff promised to keep the phone safe for
the couple to collect. It was - or so it would appear - while the phone
was admittedly in the direct custody and control of McDonalds that this
happened. That being the case, then on the principle of vicarious
liability, I would give such a claim a pretty good chance of succeeding
even under our law.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:

In message
,
didds writes
On 23 Nov, 10:55, johannes wrote:
Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the couple
themselves.

this is america.


anything could happen in the next 5 minutes etc etc etc.

didds

As usual, one key point is omitted from many of the comments on the
story. A member of McDonalds staff promised to keep the phone safe for
the couple to collect. It was - or so it would appear - while the phone
was admittedly in the direct custody and control of McDonalds that this
happened. That being the case, then on the principle of vicarious
liability, I would give such a claim a pretty good chance of succeeding
even under our law.
--
Richard Miller

But the photo could have been posted onto the internet by someone else while
the phone was in the custody and control of McDonalds. That photo might not
necessarily have come from the phone... They would have to prove more than
the coincidence of time.

"Johannes Andersen" wrote in message
...


Richard Miller wrote:

In message
,
didds writes
On 23 Nov, 10:55, johannes wrote:
Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD
staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the
couple
themselves.

this is america.


anything could happen in the next 5 minutes etc etc etc.

didds

As usual, one key point is omitted from many of the comments on the
story. A member of McDonalds staff promised to keep the phone safe for
the couple to collect. It was - or so it would appear - while the phone
was admittedly in the direct custody and control of McDonalds that this
happened. That being the case, then on the principle of vicarious
liability, I would give such a claim a pretty good chance of succeeding
even under our law.
--
Richard Miller

But the photo could have been posted onto the internet by someone else
while
the phone was in the custody and control of McDonalds. That photo might
not
necessarily have come from the phone... They would have to prove more
than
the coincidence of time.
Should be possible to check the phone and see if it was downloaded while in
the possession of McD.

Mr X wrote:

"Johannes Andersen" wrote in message
...


Richard Miller wrote:

In message
,
didds writes
On 23 Nov, 10:55, johannes wrote:
Another lottery grab?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7744345.stm

I can't see how it will succeed, they would have to prove that McD
staff
posted the pictures; they could have been posted by anyone or even the
couple
themselves.

this is america.


anything could happen in the next 5 minutes etc etc etc.

didds

As usual, one key point is omitted from many of the comments on the
story. A member of McDonalds staff promised to keep the phone safe for
the couple to collect. It was - or so it would appear - while the phone
was admittedly in the direct custody and control of McDonalds that this
happened. That being the case, then on the principle of vicarious
liability, I would give such a claim a pretty good chance of succeeding
even under our law.
--
Richard Miller

But the photo could have been posted onto the internet by someone else
while
the phone was in the custody and control of McDonalds. That photo might
not
necessarily have come from the phone... They would have to prove more
than
the coincidence of time.
Should be possible to check the phone and see if it was downloaded while in
the possession of McD.

You mean, if photo was uploaded directly from the phone... That would be the
only viable proof.