View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 10:09 PM   #71
Jozawun
Fanatic
Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Jozawun's Avatar
 
Posts: 519
Karma: 2693434
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Device: Cybook Gen 3, Pocketbook 902, Sony 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshzilla View Post
This is so much irony in trying to sue Lance for false advertising. Lance or his publisher would have to make statements that do not match the contents of the book in order to be charged with false advertising.

For example if the publisher said "This is a story about a guy named Lance Armstrong who never used EPO in his life won the Tour de France" that would not be an example of false advertising.

If on the other hand the publisher claimed "100% of the contents is true, we fact checked everything before it went to print" and that in the book Lance makes outright denials of ever using EPO, then and only then could it be considered false advertising.
A flat denial of drug use is not necessary to found a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. As I explained previously, a statement may be technically true but may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact excludes information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred.
Jozawun is offline   Reply With Quote