Hmm, OK, so this was a default judgement (he wouldn’t give up the name of his dealer) but I wonder how this would fly here:
A former addict has opened a new front in the war on illegal drugs by successfully suing her dealer for selling her crystal methamphetamine that almost killed her.
What’s the argument? Not fit for purpose? Not of merchantable quality? I might see that you could argue those things if it was bad shit, but what if it’s actually good stuff, exactly the material that you did order?
3 responses so far ↓
1 So Much For Subtlety // Jan 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Deceptive advertising?
I can see the legal cases now. While some old twit from Eton presides, opposing council will argue whether, when Jamal X said “This is bad shit” did he mean “This is baaad shit” meaning good stuff or if he meant “This is baaaaad shit” meaning so bad it was mindblowing or just that it was bad shit.
(although if it is crystal meth the dealer was probably called Billy Jo and the buyer thought it was icing sugar)
2 sanbikinoraion // Jan 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm
It seems to me that she’s suing him for not making it clear that it was addictive. The image of drug dealers in future putting warning labels on their wares is highly entertaining. Picture:
“DOING CRYSTAL METH WHILE PREGNANT COULD SERIOUSLY HARM YOUR BABY”
etc
3 Recusant // Jan 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I remember, about 20 years ago, watching a documentary about the Thames Valley Police Drug Squad. They arrested a woman at the Reading Festival for selling LSD tabs. When, upon testing, they were found to be just coloured bits of blotting paper she was charged with Fraudulent Misrepresentation. I liked the cheek of it.
Leave a Comment