• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Moron sues for "100 Grand"

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Misanthrope

Misanthrope

Banned
It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic people are willing to present themselves as to a court, just to sue somebody.

A Kentucky woman who thought she won $100,000 in a radio station giveaway is suing for breach of contract after learning that her prize was actually a Nestle's 100 Grand candy bar. According to the below June 22 Circuit Court complaint, Norreasha Gill, 28, claims that she was listening to Lexington's WLTO-FM on the evening of May 25 when host DJ Slick announced that he would award "100 Grand" to the tenth caller. When Gill, the pregnant mother of three children, was that tenth caller, the radio host told her she could pick up her prize the following day at WLTO's studio.
Click to expand...
How stupid do you have to be to believe that a radio station is randomly giving away $100,000 to the 10th person who calls them? What promotional purpose could that possibly serve that would warrant such an extravagant amount? It's obviously nonsense to anyone with a brain.

And then there are the attorneys who present such cases with a straight face. The judge should throw this out on sight, but considering judges are attorneys first...who knows? :roll2:



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0623051grand1.html
 
I'm not saying im for this, but she will probably win :so:

Not sure if either of these apply but according to my business law book, the Lanham Trademark Act prohibits the use of 'any false description or representation' in connection with any goods or services introduced into commerce.

Also Federal Trade Commssion Act 5(a)(1)
Unfair methods of competition...and unfair or deceptive acts or practices...are hereby declared unlawful.
 
Upvote 0
<CODE>Elements of a Contract</CODE>
There are five basic elements of a contract:
  1. Agreement (offer & Acceptance,
  2. It must be voluntary,
  3. There must be consideration,
  4. Both parties must have capacity to contract and,
  5. It must be legal.
3.<CODE> Consideration</CODE>
The legal definition of consideration is "the legal value, bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise."​
Click to expand...
​
​
I would venture to say there is no consideration given here, hence no contract, hence no breach committed.​
​
It is my understanding that a promise of a gift is not a contract and that if someone reneges on a promise to give, they will be liable only if the aforementioned promise induced the donee to take an action they otherwise would not have taken and the donee thus suffered damages.​
​
Anyone with more knowledge, please feel free to correct this as necessary.​
 
Upvote 0
Edit - looks like Bucky beat me to some of this. . .

I think this would be a contracts law case.

Was their a unilateral contract? These are rare, but are situations where someone says, "anyone who does ___ gets ___." Example: an ad offering a $500 reward for a missing dog.

So did this happen here? Was there consideration (something to the station in exchange for the $$)?

Hmm. Actually I bet contests, or gaming, falls under some special law-- like the kind that makes anyone eligible to enter by mail, etc.

Anyway, as to this case showing something wrong with the legal system, anyone can bring a case against anyone for any reason. Hell, you could file a case against Santa Clause for not giving you a pony if you want. It doesn't mean you won't get dismissed. . .
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt said:
[/left]
I would venture to say there is no consideration given here, hence no contract, hence no breach committed.​
It is my understanding that a promise of a gift is not a contract and that if someone reneges on a promise to give, they will be liable only if the aforementioned promise induced the donee to take an action they otherwise would not have taken and the donee thus suffered damages.​
Anyone with more knowledge, please feel free to correct this as necessary.​
Click to expand...
That may be, but there are ways around that.

Promissory Estoppel
A promise could be enforced even though it lacks consideration if three conditions are met:

1)The promisee relies on the promise in a significant way
2) The reliance was or should have been foreseeable to the promisor
3) Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise

I hate business law :smash:
 
Upvote 0
just going on VERY faint memory here but...

isn't there something about "a contract cannot be made in jest"
ie: if i say "i hate my stupid car, i would sell it for a dollar" this couldn't be held as a contract if someone agrees because its in jest?
 
Upvote 0
:smash: F$%&ing lawyers.
If the DJ said "I will award a hundred grand to the 10th caller", and he gives her a 100 Grand candy bar, how is there a breach of contract? How is there deception involved? Promissory Estoppel shouldn't be brought into this, that's playing dirty.
If the DJ said "I will award a hundred thousand dollars to the 10th caller" it's a whole new ballgame.
If the former is true, the lawyer who filed the suit, the woman who retained the lawyer, and anyone who thinks she should win should be taken out and shot.
The DJ should be fired and publicly beaten for not telling this woman she won a candy bar before he got off the phone with her.
 
Upvote 0
I don't know shit about no business law, in fact I really only know two long held truths when it comes to courtroom action.

1) never put a balm on, you never know what a balm can do!

2) if it does not fit, you must aquit.

One of those must be applicable in this situation.
 
Upvote 0
Buck Nasty said:
I don't know shit about no business law, in fact I really only know two long held truths when it comes to courtroom action.

1) never put a balm on, you never know what a balm can do!

2) if it does not fit, you must aquit.

One of those must be applicable in this situation.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Chewbacca Defense. Rather complex, but highly effective.
 
Upvote 0
I would venture to say there is no consideration given here, hence no contract, hence no breach committed.
Click to expand...

Didn't they ask her to make a trip to the station and didn't she do that? Certainly that doesn't merit 100k, but if the station was intentionally misleading in their enticement to get her to spend time and mileage to fulfill her end of the 'contract' she could be entitled to something.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top