Another situation: customer borrows a tennis racket, he smashes and the racket breaks. He claims the tennis racket. No, says FBTO, the racket was used for its intended purpose and therefore the customer could not do anything about it. The owner lent a broken tennis racket, that is the person you need to go to. Who do we agree with? You may vote.
The unabashed audacity with which policyholders dare to appeal to their insurance is remarkable hungary phone number list Let those two tennis players sort it out among themselves, without burdening the other policyholders and society with it. Among themselves, that's what it's called. A tennis racket is like a dictator. At some point it's finished. And of course you can ask yourself what you achieve with it if the masses involved give their opinion. What does it mean if the majority thinks that payment should be made?
The mechanism of mass production seems promising, thanks to the network. But it is that same fine network that undermines the power of mass production: namely the ability to bring together interest groups at lightning speed. What happens if the tennis player under the internet skin mobilizes his friends to vote for Payout? Yes!? What happens if millions of Chinese form an interest group via QQ, the Chinese Facebook, to push the design in a neo-Maoist direction? Wisdom of Crowds can work if individuals from the crowd act independently of each other. And that no longer exists. There is no longer an unbiased jury member to be found.