What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Aunt Jemima suing Quaker: Asking for 2 Billion (1 Viewer)

hopefully the family gets paid, the picture on the box and syrup bottle along with the name are the primary reasons why I buy their products.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
$2 Billion sounds about right for a picture on a box of pancake mix AND syrup.

I'm going to check ancestry.com for possible links to Cap'n Crunch or Mayor McCheese.

 
This is about more than just the picture. I believe the syrup bottle was actually molded in the shape of Aunt Jemima's body. Customers would fondle Aunt Jemima's body each morning, while spilling her lifeblood onto their pancakes and french toast. $2 bln seems a bit light.

 
So when you hire an actress or model, they are automatically entitled to 50 percent of the company value. Awesome gig.

ETA: I wonder why they have to represent themselves. It would seem there would be lawyers standing in line to take such an awesome case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.

 
So when you hire an actress or model, they are automatically entitled to 50 percent of the company value. Awesome gig.

ETA: I wonder why they have to represent themselves. It would seem there would be lawyers standing in line to take such an awesome case.
Kind of ironic that no lawyer is willing to take the case for less than 50% of the winnings, right? I guess the family feels that's unjust!

 
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?

 
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?
Yeah...I was wondering the same thing. They were quoting that she was "employed" by Quaker as if it somehow justified their claim. I didn't really see where there was any wrong-doing.

 
Fat Nick said:
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
I assume they've waited far too long to have a case here, but everyone wants to pass on their wealth to their future generations that didn't do anything to deserve. It's the backbone of our society.

 
Fat Nick said:
jon_mx said:
Fat Nick said:
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
What merit? They hired and paid her it seems. Did they not live up to the contract? What are the legal grounds for the claims?
Yeah...I was wondering the same thing. They were quoting that she was "employed" by Quaker as if it somehow justified their claim. I didn't really see where there was any wrong-doing.
Read that the great grandson is a civil rights activist so my guess this is a quick money grab and he will use the media attention of the suit to highlight the racist aspects of the branding to extract some hush money

 
Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.

 
Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.
Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.

I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.
Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.

I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
How did they take advantage? It seemed like she stayed an employee for the rest of her life. I would say they treated her right from all we know.

 
Seems like quaker would have been better off giving the family some hush money.
Not sure why. This gives the company a lot of publcity and the claims are outrageously frivolous. What is hush money on a $2 billion suit? I think if they were offered anything under $1 million they would be laughed at and it would only give the public the impression that the case had some merit.
Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.

I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
How did they take advantage? It seemed like she stayed an employee for the rest of her life. I would say they treated her right from all we know.
God knows a black lady in the 30's only stayed at a job if she was treated very well and fairly compensated.

I don't know what the situation was like either. Just saying this whole thing could be bad for the brand, which has somehow made it this long without being scrutinized.

 
Maybe they don't want a public discussion about why in the hell a brand in 2014 is still using a Mammie archetype celebrating the plantation lifestyle to sell pancake mix? Or maybe that they built the brand by taking advantage of a series of old black lady's from the 1880's to the 1930's? Now, generations of white kids have benefited from that image, while this lady's own children are having to sue for their share.
I have no idea what these people have a right to, but there are plenty of reasons for Quaker to want to have this go away quietly.
Maybe it's just because everybody knows she makes some bomb-### pancakes and has nothing to do with celebrating plantation lifestyle. That's how people dressed back then. Look at the Quaker Oats guy himself.

 
Fat Nick said:
I hate suits like this...I really do. Motivated by greed and nothing more. I get that there is unquestionably legal grounds here. Not questioning that. I'm not saying that I think Quaker should be off the hook either if they did something wrong, but I also don't feel like the relatives really deserve any of this either...It's not like they did anything.
Agreed. It's one thing if they figured this out 10-15 years after the fact and asked for a reasonable sum. But to ask for $2B 80 years later with the "victim" long in the grave is just looking for a payday. I don't sympathize at all.

 
I stopped buying Aunt Jemima products after they updated her look. I don't like how she's all uppity now. #####, you sell pancake mix and syrup, get over yourself.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top