Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: kasparov
I too want to say that I read through all the posts here. Its this type of tread that brings ATOT and its hundreds of differing opinions to light.

It's interesting how the outcome on this case actually played out. The DJ wanted to make a cheap joke at someone else's expense. He annouced a contest for a 100 grand, and then had some unsuspecting listener called in expecting a 100,000 dollars. He thought that he would have a laugh; make fun of this unknowning individual and then move on with his life. Perhaphs he would make fun of someone else later on.

Well the joke was on him -- and it is a hell of a lot more funny this way. The DJ is out of a job; the radio station that aired this stupid bit is going to be out of a lot of money; and the woman is going to get her "100 grand" prize.

Funny how this world works right. Remember the Godfather quote, "You think you are playing them, but then they play you". ( I don't think I remember the quote exactly right.)

In Soviet Russia you don't listen to the radio, the radio listens to you!

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
These kinds fo things usually involve a toy Yoda.

hahahaha!

actually there is a law against what the djs did

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Hacp
If someone walked up to you and said that you were the 100th person to walk on the sidewalk today and that you won 500 dollars; all you had to do was give them your contact information, would you do it? I don't think any sane person in this forum would(unless it were a hot girl).

That is the most idiotic post I have seen...most hot chicks aren't going to waste their time over a contest handing out $500. Although maybe in alabama or one of the Dakotas.

He meant if the person asking for your information was a hot chick.

 

[MaxisOne]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
the radio station gained in advertising $/sec from being misleading...at a critical time for ratings, i might add...they knew exactly what they were doing...

they violated the reasonable listener statute from the fcc...

and they had it in writing "100 grand, not a 100 grand"

if you were giving away a milky way candy bar would you say "we're giving away milky way, or a milky way" ?

would you also say someone is going to be "milky way richer" ?

of course not, it was misleading, they knew godamn good and wel what they were doing, and it was wrong...

wtf is there to argue about?

:disgust:

Here Here !!!

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: silverpigIf anything, the radio should pay a fine to the FCC for breaking one of its rules.

The rules are in place to protect the public. If they violated the rules, and she was the specific person involved, they harmed her in some way. Why shouldn't she receive compensation?

People just don't want to see her get a "quick paycheck" unfortunatly, that's what the radio station is going to give her.

Otherwise the rules are BS and should be done away with. The FCC isn't supposed to make rules to collect fees. It's supposed to protect the interest of the public (haha).

 

[gorcorps]

Hehe, my radio station did something like this... They offered a new Toyota for anyone who was the 10th caller and did some crazy stunt. Some guy won, and he found out what they really meant was a new "Toy Yoda." So they gave the guy a star wars toy! It was hilarious.

 

[tooltime]

what a waste of money and some lawyers time

 

[tooltime]

but i can't say it's a waste of her time

 

[tami]

you know, tooltime, you could just edit your post instead of posting two in a row.

i hope she wins. these stunts are not cool.

 

[judasmachine]

both sides are dumb...

 

[knyghtbyte]

ok, the fact he said 100 grand richer means he promised money so for THAT reason she is in the right to sue for the amount promised.....

HOWEVER (love caps..lol) if he had not said the word richer, just that the 10th caller can win 'a' Hundred Grand then far as im concerned there isnt a problem, at least assuming the Hundred Grand chocolate bar is trademarked or whatever. Also if he said 'One Hundred Grand then again he would be liable to pay up the moolah.

Personally i think those things are a laugh, use to watch TV show where the presenter would hide away while some workman or whatever would do things like demolish someones car while they watched or their conservatory or something.......then of course they would go ballistic, then he would pop out and they would realise it was a joke and the TV show had replaced his car or conservatory or whatever with a fake one........this happened in the 1980s/early 90's btw
Im aware they do something like that to celebreties on a TV show in the US, but not on members of the public anymore (if im wrong dont shoot me ok, im english..lol). I imagine if they did stuff like that to members of the public in the good ol'USofA nowadays they would be sued for panic attack or possible sleep interruption from the shock affecting their working ability etc......rather than just seeing the funny side...

i hate people who take the fun out of life.....you should all curl up and die

nothing wrong with April Fools jokes or occasional pranks, so long as its not done to increase the coffers of the telecommunications companies by making you phone premium rate numbers....if its local rate call i think its a laugh.....but i must admit they should be careful what they actually say, work it from a script rather than Ad-lib, otherwise as the OP's DJ found out it backfires....lol

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jakedeez

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
These kinds fo things usually involve a toy Yoda.

hahahaha!

actually there is a law against what the djs did

If only there was a law about stupid lawsuits.....

I vote for the death penalty for both the plaintiff and their lawyer.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Otherwise the rules are BS and should be done away with. The FCC isn't supposed to make rules to collect fees. It's supposed to protect the interest of the public (haha).

HA! That's like saying red-light cameras are there to save lives, not generate revenue.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
ok, the fact he said 100 grand richer means he promised money so for THAT reason she is in the right to sue for the amount promised.....

HOWEVER (love caps..lol) if he had not said the word richer, just that the 10th caller can win 'a' Hundred Grand then far as im concerned there isnt a problem, at least assuming the Hundred Grand chocolate bar is trademarked or whatever. Also if he said 'One Hundred Grand then again he would be liable to pay up the moolah.

Umm.. 'richer' does not necessarily imply money. In fact:

rich
adj. rich·er, rich·est

1. Possessing great material wealth: ?Now that he was rich he was not thought ignorant any more, but simply eccentric? (Mavis Gallant).
2. Having great worth or value: a rich harvest of grain.
3. Magnificent; sumptuous: a rich brocade.
4.
. . . a. Having an abundant supply: rich in ideas.
. . . b. Abounding, especially in natural resources: rich land.
5. Meaningful and significant: ?a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader? (William Zinsser).
6. Very productive and therefore financially profitable: rich seams of coal.
7.
. . . a. Containing a large amount of choice ingredients, such as butter, sugar, or eggs, and therefore unusually heavy or sweet: a rich dessert.
. . . b. Having or exuding a strong or pungent aroma: ?Texas air is so rich you can nourish off it like it was food? (Edna Ferber).
8.
. . . a. Pleasantly full and mellow: a rich tenor voice.
. . . b. Warm and strong in color: a rich brown velvet.
9. Containing a large proportion of fuel to air: a rich gas mixture.
10. Informal. Highly amusing.

Money is never even mentioned in this definition. Had she accepted the candy bar, she most defintely would have been a Hundred Grand richer than if she had not accepted it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Please tell me you don't honestly believe the DJ did not intend to mislead the listeners. You can play semantic games all you want, but there's no way you can deny that his intention was for the listeners to believe the prize was $100,000. The only issue is whether you believe that a radio station should be required to give a person the prize they were promised.

 

[Tiamat]

She got 100 Grand. She shouldnt complain. The guy didnt say 100 thousand dollars.

If she wins, amerika is doomed.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Please tell me you don't honestly believe the DJ did not intend to mislead the listeners. You can play semantic games all you want, but there's no way you can deny that his intention was for the listeners to believe the prize was $100,000. The only issue is whether you believe that a radio station should be required to give a person the prize they were promised.

Why not simply read the thread and my dozen or so posts to it. Of course this is not a 'simple misunderstanding' about the prize involved. It was a deliberate practical joke. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing differently, but that sure is a nice strawman you've erected there. :roll:

You may think this is a 'semantics game,' but that's the *only* basis on which she can win this lawsuit. You can't just sue someone for being mean to you or embarrassing you.

Or hell, maybe you can. Who cares anymore? Lawsuits for everybody! To hell with earning a living - let those darn rich bastard pay for everything!

 

[theGlove]

Originally posted by: Safeway
That DJ was an idiot, she deserves her $100,000.

finally somebody with common sense. Radio DJ purposely misled, they need to be spanked for it

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Please tell me you don't honestly believe the DJ did not intend to mislead the listeners. You can play semantic games all you want, but there's no way you can deny that his intention was for the listeners to believe the prize was $100,000. The only issue is whether you believe that a radio station should be required to give a person the prize they were promised.

Why not simply read the thread and my dozen or so posts to it. Of course this is not a 'simple misunderstanding' about the prize involved. It was a deliberate practical joke. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing differently, but that sure is a nice strawman you've erected there. :roll:

You may think this is a 'semantics game,' but that's the *only* basis on which she can win this lawsuit. You can't just sue someone for being mean to you or embarrassing you.

Or hell, maybe you can. Who cares anymore? Lawsuits for everybody! To hell with earning a living - let those darn rich bastard pay for everything!

I read the thread for a while when it first popped up, then I saw it again today and replied to your post. I probably did read your earlier posts, but I apologize that I did not reread the thread to refresh my memory.

Now, the point of the first half of my post is that arguing over whether his words could possibly be interpreted to be referring to a candy bar is pointless. No matter how you slice it, the DJ wanted her to believe the prize was $100,000. We obviously agree on that, so it's odd that you were arguing that his words could be interpreted as referring to a candy bar...

The point of the second half of my post was that, granting that he intended her to believe her prize was $100,000, the only issue here is whether we believe that the radio station should be obligated to pay a prize that it promised (and I suppose, whether intentionally leading a person to believe they won a certain prize constitutes a promise to give them that prize). If I'm mistaken in that, please correct me.

For sake of argument, I'm going to assume that no one here would side with the DJ/radio station if the DJ said the prize was $100,000 instead of "100 grand." Again, if I'm wrong please correct me.

Now, what's the difference between the DJ offering $100,000 and refusing to pay up, and the DJ intentionally leading a person to believe they won a prize of $100,000 and refusing to pay up? Either way a person was led to believe they won $100,000 and they did not receive it.

I'm against frivolous lawsuits, but I'm also for taking responsibility for our actions. Does this woman deserve $100,000? Absolutely not, but does anyone who wins a radio contest deserve their prize?