Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like the bank missed out on a huge opportunity. They could have seized a good PR moment by planning an orderly distribution of the food that was otherwise going to be destroyed. In addition, they could have claimed the value of the food as a tax write-off.
Mny will not donate food they reject to sell to others because they do not want the liqabilty .Sad but true.Een mnay charties now will not take out of date food that is perfect safe ebcause of liability.
I have to agree with texdav. The bank would have a difficult time explaining to their insurance company and investors why they would take on the added liability of distributing food.
Who would pay for all the lawsuits from upset stomachs, food poisonings and whatever else someone could dream up. It's so easy to say what someone else should do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.