sprawdzenie tekstu

mógłby ktos poprawic błedy? byłabym niezmiernie wdzięczna xD

The article called „Somebody should do something about that” was written by Matt Conrad.
One of the main reasons chich LED the reporter to write the article was bought a book of Randy Cassingham „The true Stella Awards”.
The True Stella Awards are named for Stella Liebeck. She’s the women who spilled coffe in her lap and than sued McDonald’s. Cassingham precisely describes this particuraly case, he also gives an examples of similar absurd cases.
Cassingham doesn’t criticize lawyers, jud ges Or Rother officers working In the justice. He criticizes pe ople who bring frivolous lawsuits. In his opinion this kinf of problem can’t be solved by passing a few tort reform, He thinks that the problem wouldn’t exist if ordinary pe ople didn’t Sue pe ople to try to Get something for nothing. Everyone sholud ask themselves „Did I contribute to this dis aster in Any way?” It;s a really tough question.
Cassingham In his book also raises issues of fees for the lawsuit, becouse those who pay for it are the taxpayers, not to menton the time that judges have to waste for reviewing the case before dimissing it.
At the end of the book Cassingham suggest some solutions that May lead to partial solution of this problem. According to Cassingham and also Conrad opinion „Practise what you preach” Nobody sholudn’t take advantage of „free Money” unless you really have been harmed. If you know somebody who wants to bring a law suit, you should ask this prson it is really warrantem Or it’s Just a buick way for Get a Money. After All there really is no such Hing as a free Money.

The article called (może lepiej : (en)titled) ''Somebody should do something about that'' was written by Matt Conrad.
One of the main reasons chichwhich led the reporter to write the article was bought (inna forma) a book of Randy Cassingham ''The true Stella Awards”.
''The True Stella Awards'' are named for (nie rozumiem o co chodzi) Stella Liebeck. She’s the a women who spilled coffe (błąd ortogr)in her lap and than sued McDonald’s. Cassingham precisely describes this particuraly (orotgr) case, he also gives an examples of similar absurd cases.
Cassingham doesn’t criticize lawyers, judges or other officers working in the Court of Justice/ JUDICATURE. He criticizes people who bring frivolous lawsuits. In his opinion this kind of problem can’t (lepiej should not) be solved by passing a few tort reform. He thinks that the problem wouldn’t exist if ordinary people didn’t sue other people to trying to get something for nothing. Everyone sholud ask themselves: „did I contribute to this disaster in any way?” It's a really tough difficult question.
Cassingham in his book also raises the issues of fees for the lawsuit, becouse (ort) those who pay for it are the taxpayers, not to menton (ortogr) the time that judges have to waste for (in) reviewing the case before dimissing (ortogr) it.
At the end of the book Cassingham suggestS some solutions thatmay lead to partial solution of this problemAt the end of the book Cassingham suggestS some solutions that could solve partly the problem. (partially -->>should be used when you are talking about physical conditions: His mother is partially blind.))) According to Cassingham's and also Conrad's opinion ''practise what you preach”, nobody sholudn’t take advantage of „free money” unless you really have been harmed. If you know somebody who wants to bring a lawsuit, you should ask this person if/whether it is really warrantem (warrant - nakaz) or it’s just a quick way to get the money. After All ( przesuń to na koniec) there really is no (zła kolejność słów) such thing as a free money.
[/quote]

''The True Stella Awards'' are named for (nie rozumiem o co chodzi- ARE NAMED AFTER Stella Liebeck. She’s the WOMAN...
In his opinion this kind of problem should not be solved by passing a few tort reformS.
Everyone 'sholud' (ortog SHOULD) ask themselves: „did I contribute to this disaster in any way?”
According to Cassingham's and also Conrad's opinion ''practise what you preach”, nobody 'sholudn’t' (to jest zle, tutaj ma byc SHOULD) take advantage of „free money” unless you really have been harmed. If you know somebody who wants to bring a lawsuit, you should ask this person if/whether it is really warrantem (warrant - nakaz, tutaj ma byc WARRANTED) or it’s just a quick way to get the money. After All ( przesuń to na koniec) there really is no (zła kolejność słów) such thing as a free 'money' (ja bym uzyla 'free lunch').