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

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

You're so far off base on this it's hard to believe that you managed to stay in the same thread. It doesn't matter what you paid for. Whether the warranty cost money or was free, it's still a CONTRACT. Let me repeat that again since you don't seem to be grasping it. It's a C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. It's legally binding no matter what it cost. What the station did created a contract. They contracted with their listeners to give away the prize they were promoting. Without requiring a specific entry fee or terms of entry, all listeners were included without having to pay for it. The station INTENTIONALLY and WILLFULLY made the contract MISLEADING to avoid having to pay for it. Tough luck for them that verbal trickery doesn't excuse them.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

You're assuming there are different laws for difference level of 'prices' for stuff. Just because the contest was free to enter, doesn't mean it's not subject to any laws.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
You can't tell the difference between $1 and $100,000?

:roll:

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Oh, come on. A lawsuit?
This is worse than the stupid Hooters chick who sued over getting a toy yoda instead of a Toyota.

I thought of that Hooters chick too.

Of course she ended up being allowed to pick out any Toyota of her choice.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: jEct2
It is one sad day in america if she actually gets full 100 grand out of this dumbass event.

She is looking for the $100,000 prize AND and additional punitive damages.

God, I hope she gets hit by a bus...preferably with a 100 Grand sign on it.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: jEct2
It is one sad day in america if she actually gets full 100 grand out of this dumba$$ event.

Fvck that DJ, I hope she gets the full $100k PLUS $50k more in punitive damages. To heck with breach of contract, that's false advertising. A "reasonable" person wouldn't assume he was talking about a 100 Grand candy bar. In fact, he specifically worded it to where it wouldn't make sense if he was referring to a candy bar.

Hey Ilmater, for posting in this thread, I'm going to give you $100,000.

Wait - no I'm not. Oh noes! Now you can sue me for "breach of contract." :roll:

 

[slycat]

i hope she wins.

 

[waggy]

they are going to come down hard on the radio station. they pormoted it as $100k prize and acted like it was money.

to change it at the last second to a candy bar is wrong.

she will win the suit.

 

[her209]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the lady won the case, but was thrown in jail later for tax evasion?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: her209
Wouldn't it be ironic if the lady won the case, but was thrown in jail later for tax evasion?

She'd probably buy 100k lottery tickets

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

If being a general d1ck to other people were grounds for lawsuits, are you stupid OTers would be broke as hell and in court 6 days a week for the rest of your lives.

 

[raptor13]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

You can't tell the difference between $1 and $100,000?

Sure I can but that doesn't matter. What applies to the $100,000 should apply to the $1, end of story. That isn't even the point here.

I completely agree that the lady got tricked. She built up her hopes and then they were crushed. Boo hoo. I don't care. The point is that while the radio station misled her, they never lied to her. Was anyone stopping her from calling up the station and saying, "This sounds too good to be true! If I'm the 10th caller, you're going to give me $100,000?"

The radio station would have said no.

If the radio station said yes, then they lied and she'd have a real reason to be pissed.



She's going to win this lawsuit, a ridiculous bundle of money, and all it's going to do is make me frustrated.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

If being a general d1ck to other people were grounds for lawsuits, are you stupid OTers would be broke as hell and in court 6 days a week for the rest of your lives.

QFT

What the DJ did may have been unethical, unfair and in poor judgement - but no law was broken here.

Any halfway decent court will toss this out immediately...

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

When did the radio station ever say that they were giving away 100 thousand dollars?

They didn't.....

 

[AdamMT1618]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

When did the radio station ever say that they were giving away 100 thousand dollars?

They didn't.....

Dictionary.com: Grand

pl. grand Slang. A thousand dollars: sold the car for six grand.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: raptor13

Originally posted by: dabuddha

You can't tell the difference between $1 and $100,000?

Sure I can but that doesn't matter. What applies to the $100,000 should apply to the $1, end of story. That isn't even the point here.

I completely agree that the lady got tricked. She built up her hopes and then they were crushed. Boo hoo. I don't care. The point is that while the radio station misled her, they never lied to her. Was anyone stopping her from calling up the station and saying, "This sounds too good to be true! If I'm the 10th caller, you're going to give me $100,000?"

They did lie... they said she was going to get 100 grand, and pushed it as that. If you were paying $1000 to enter into that same contest for '100 grand', everything worded exactly the same, you probably would say you were entitled to that. Again, just because the contest was free, doesn't mean it wasn't subjected to any laws.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: AdamMT1618

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

Bottom line, what the radio station did was wrong. They should not have told her she won $100,000 and then minutes later, laugh at her and tell her she can't buy all that she wants with a candy bar. You don't raise someones hopes and then crush their dreams.

When did the radio station ever say that they were giving away 100 thousand dollars?

They didn't.....

Dictionary.com: Grand

pl. grand Slang. A thousand dollars: sold the car for six grand.

Ennnnnntttt

Try again

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
You're so far off base on this it's hard to believe that you managed to stay in the same thread. It doesn't matter what you paid for. Whether the warranty cost money or was free, it's still a CONTRACT. Let me repeat that again since you don't seem to be grasping it. It's a C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. It's legally binding no matter what it cost. What the station did created a contract. They contracted with their listeners to give away the prize they were promoting. Without requiring a specific entry fee or terms of entry, all listeners were included without having to pay for it. The station INTENTIONALLY and WILLFULLY made the contract MISLEADING to avoid having to pay for it. Tough luck for them that verbal trickery doesn't excuse them.

a contract requires a meeting of the minds. here there obviously was none. no meeting of the minds, no contract.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: AdamMT1618

Originally posted by: Nitemare

When did the radio station ever say that they were giving away 100 thousand dollars?

They didn't.....

Dictionary.com: Grand

pl. grand Slang. A thousand dollars: sold the car for six grand.

So if I promise my wife a pearl necklace for her birthday, you feel she has a valid lawsuit after I zip up?

 

[purbeast0]

i really hope this woman doesn't win this case. i don't know details other than what I've read. and from what I've read, there was NO FALSE ADVERTISING. how is saying "you win a 100 grand" false advertising, if in fact, they are actually giving her a 100 grand candy bar? thats not false advertising at all, that is just the woman assuming that its $100,000, when that is actually "100,000 dollars" if you want to get technical.

if the guy had said "the winner gets 100,000 dollars" and then gave her a 100 grand candy bar, then yea, that would be an issue. but there was no false advertising by saying "the winner gets 100 grand" and he gives her a candy bar. its not their fault that the winner assumed by grand they meant dollars.

sure, its a crappy thing to do, but nothing here is illegal and IMO it is not false advertising if they never claimed it was 100,000 dollars.

 

[raptor13]

Originally posted by: Looney


They did lie... they said she was going to get 100 grand, and pushed it as that. If you were paying $1000 to enter into that same contest for '100 grand', everything worded exactly the same, you probably would say you were entitled to that. Again, just because the contest was free, doesn't mean it wasn't subjected to any laws.

They didn't lie! They promised 100 Grand and that's what she got - 100 Grand. Had she paid $1, $1000, or $450,000,000,000 to enter the contest, they still wouldn't have lied to her. She would have felt even more screwed than she does now but oh well. It all comes down to this:

She did not understand the terms of the contract you keep harping about.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Looney

They did lie... they said she was going to get 100 grand, and pushed it as that. If you were paying $1000 to enter into that same contest for '100 grand', everything worded exactly the same, you probably would say you were entitled to that. Again, just because the contest was free, doesn't mean it wasn't subjected to any laws.

Obviously words in the English language have more than one meaning. Misinterpreting the intended definition of a word doesn't automatically give you grounds to sue someone.

If I buy a "car", can I turn around and sue a car dealership for failing to deliver a street-car, an elevator car, or a horse-drawn chariot?

Show me a written contract where the radio station entered into an agreement to deliver "$100,000.00 US Dollars" and I'll show you a woman who is "a grand" richer.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: raptor13

Originally posted by: dabuddha

You can't tell the difference between $1 and $100,000?

Sure I can but that doesn't matter. What applies to the $100,000 should apply to the $1, end of story. That isn't even the point here.

I completely agree that the lady got tricked. She built up her hopes and then they were crushed. Boo hoo. I don't care. The point is that while the radio station misled her, they never lied to her. Was anyone stopping her from calling up the station and saying, "This sounds too good to be true! If I'm the 10th caller, you're going to give me $100,000?"

They did lie... they said she was going to get 100 grand, and pushed it as that. If you were paying $1000 to enter into that same contest for '100 grand', everything worded exactly the same, you probably would say you were entitled to that. Again, just because the contest was free, doesn't mean it wasn't subjected to any laws.

You'd be entitled to your original $1000 and whatever other losses associated with you handing over that money, if anything.

Buyer beware. If you realy think a deal is too good to be true, then FIND OUT! I guarantee if someone called the station said, "Hey, when you say '100 Grand' are you talking about $100,000 in legal US monetary notes?" that the station would have had to say "No."

 

[axelfox]

Gifts are not enforceable unless there was foreseeable reliance.