It has recently come to my attention that a judge refused to grant damages to a woman who claimed damages after eating Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries for four years. She sued for damages from false advertising after finding out that crunchberries were not real berries and in fact, were not fruit.
The judge did not look kindly on the lawsuit, in part because “This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a “crunchberry. So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.” Thus, since the plaintiff was unable to locate any waving fields of flowering crunchberries, her claims were summarily dropped.
This falls on the heels of a similar case whereby “froot loops” were discovered by the court not to contain any fruit, and the plaintiff dismissed as a poor speller.
I suppose as a result of these failed cases, my pending cases against “Special K” not really having any “Special Potassium” and my recent discovery that grape nuts contains neither grapes nor nuts may be in danger, especially if the case is heard by either the crunchberry or froot loops judges.