Good-day Everyone, I found out that I have been drinking expired coke for the past few weeks.

Lol. No.

As Mr. Foster said, I don't see a cause of action here. If they give you replacement Coca Cola, you should consider yourself ahead of the game.

People filing claims like this is why people hate lawyers. You have no damages.

Hopefully a case of new Coke :} http://www.phillyinjurylawyer.com/

There are at least two separate potential claims to be evaluated here -- one based on contract law, one based on personal injury (tort) law. As a matter of contract law, the vending machine company was representing to the public, at least by implication (and as a matter of implied-in-law warranties), that the products it was selling were safe and fit for human consumption; arguably, they were also representing that in addition to being safe, the products had a particular quality or fitness level. Expiration dates typically are set very conservatively, and they're typically based on the normal amount of time over which a product's spoilage or decay will reduce its perceived quality. Old stuff may not taste as good, in other words, but it usually starts to taste bad long before it becomes unsafe. We don't know the details about how much past the expiry date the products you consumed were, but apparently they weren't so old that you noticed until after many, many purchases; that suggests that not even the quality had been affected. Still, you didn't get what you were promised, even if you weren't much hurt by it. If you have a contract-type claim, your damages (loss of the benefit of the bargain, i.e., the difference in value between what you were promised and what you got) are almost certainly wiped out by the free replacement product. So I don't believe you have a viable or attractive contract claim that would be likely to be worth pursuing in court. Essentially this same analysis would apply to several "quasi-contract/quasi-tort" legal theories. You might have claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, for example, but you have no damages and therefore can't recover under that act. Arguably you were the victim of commercial fraud, a tort; but again, you have no economic damages that have not already been fully compensated. There's a similar analysis for the personal injury (tort) analysis. The vendor has a duty to use reasonable care -- that which a similarly situated company would use in the same or similar circumstances -- to make sure that what it was selling was safe. Arguably, selling a product that's past its expiration date could sometimes be a breach of that duty -- in other words, negligence. However, for you to have a plausible legal claim, you would have had to have been injured in some meaningful way -- typically something that required medical attention. That you were angry, disappointed, or upset isn't enough. I therefore agree with the other lawyers who've expressed opinions here: I don't think you have a viable legal claim, at least based just on what you've written here. I suspect the other lawyers' opinions were based on a quick mental trip through the factors I've just mentioned, and some of them indeed summarized bits and pieces of that. I don't mean to chide or criticize them. But in my own view, there's nothing wrong with wondering -- as you have done here -- what your potential legal rights and remedies are. And there's no reason for anyone here to assume that having now gotten the kind of broad overview of lawyer opinions that have been posted here, you would ignore that advice or file a frivolous lawsuit.

No. You were not injured simply because you consumed an expired drink. If that were the case, you'd have a case against every company that produces the food that is in your pantry and expired.

No. By the way, I'm glad you don't have a case because in order to have one, you would have to have been injured by the Coke, which, thankfully, you evidently were not.

A case of coke, maybe. A basis for a lawsuit, no.