Originally posted by: dabuddha
Exactly. If I thought I just won a contest for $100,000, you have no idea what that would do for me. I've been working my a$$ off paying off my wife's student loans and saving up money for a home/retirement. And then to find out they would give me a fvcking candy bar and laugh about it? :|
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: chowderhead
so entering a contest, winning the contest for 100 grand and expecting to be paid 100 grand but actually getting a candy bar called 100 grand and demanding to be paid 100 grand is now being a selfish ass. If the radio station did nothing wrong why did they let the DJ go? You want to trick people with bogus contests to boost your ratings, fine pay for it. Can I give you 3 candy bars for your house?
Yes. That is the very definition of being a selfish ass.
They let the DJ go because of whiners like you.
Can you give me 3 candy bars for my house? No. But if I said yes and you did, can I then turn around and sue you because I expected 'candy bars' to be slang for '100 Grand' and therefore, 'reasonably expected' you to give me $300,000? I think not.
If you're going to use analogies, at least use one that is actually relevant and doesn't sound made up by a 5 year old. The words "Candy Bars" have never been used to mean $100,000. Ever.
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
And how exactly did you make that brilliant, logical deduction?Originally posted by: dabuddha
So according to your logic, a person who kills someone accidently (hit with a car when the person ran out in front of her in pouring rain) should suffer the same punishment as someone who rapes and hacks someone into little pieces? :roll:Originally posted by: raptor13
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.
According to your logic, you don't believe in degrees. You say what applies to $1 should apply to $100,000. Using your logic, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the death of the person, someone is dead and someone should be punished for it.
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Wrong-o. Any ambiguity in a contract is held against the drafter of the contract. Anything that can be misinterpreted or anything that is not spelled out is the fault of the party writing the contract. The radio station set the contract. They are responsible for what the listener believes it provides. It's reasonable for a contest for "100 Grand" to be for $100,000 dollars. If the radio station had something else in mind they needed to explicitly spell out what they were offering. Failure to clear it up in advance means they are on the hook for the whole $100,000
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I did a search on 100 Grand, 100,000 and lady sues radio station. Nothing found. Sorry if it is a repost.
Text
Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar
JUNE 23--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. She subsequently learned that the contest was a "joke," according to her lawsuit, which names the radio station's parent company, Cumulus Media, as a defendant.
Gill's lawsuit seeks the $100,000 prize and additional punitive damages. The 22-year-old DJ Slick, whose real name is Jason Hamman, is no longer working for WLTO, a departure apparently hastened by the May stunt. Hamman, pictured at left, declined to speak about the "100 Grand" incident when contacted by phone today. In a May 25 blog posting promoting that night's giveaway, Hamman wrote that he would be presenting "our loyal listeners with a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!! It's sitting in a bag to my left ready for someone to take off with just like the Runaway bride!" The tenth caller, he added, would be "100 GRAND RICHER!!! No joke."
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Wrong-o. Any ambiguity in a contract is held against the drafter of the contract. Anything that can be misinterpreted or anything that is not spelled out is the fault of the party writing the contract. The radio station set the contract. They are responsible for what the listener believes it provides. It's reasonable for a contest for "100 Grand" to be for $100,000 dollars. If the radio station had something else in mind they needed to explicitly spell out what they were offering. Failure to clear it up in advance means they are on the hook for the whole $100,000
Just curious... you a lawyer?
So your whole argument is that you'd feel bad for not actually winning, so you're somehow entitled to the non-existant monetary compensation from those who made you feel that way?Originally posted by: dabuddha
Exactly. If I thought I just won a contest for $100,000, you have no idea what that would do for me. I've been working my a$$ off paying off my wife's student loans and saving up money for a home/retirement. And then to find out they would give me a fvcking candy bar and laugh about it? :|
Originally posted by: goodoptics
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I did a search on 100 Grand, 100,000 and lady sues radio station. Nothing found. Sorry if it is a repost.
Text
Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar
JUNE 23--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. She subsequently learned that the contest was a "joke," according to her lawsuit, which names the radio station's parent company, Cumulus Media, as a defendant.
Gill's lawsuit seeks the $100,000 prize and additional punitive damages. The 22-year-old DJ Slick, whose real name is Jason Hamman, is no longer working for WLTO, a departure apparently hastened by the May stunt. Hamman, pictured at left, declined to speak about the "100 Grand" incident when contacted by phone today. In a May 25 blog posting promoting that night's giveaway, Hamman wrote that he would be presenting "our loyal listeners with a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!! It's sitting in a bag to my left ready for someone to take off with just like the Runaway bride!" The tenth caller, he added, would be "100 GRAND RICHER!!! No joke."
When a normal human being hears that from the DJ, woundn't first thing comes to his/her mind be that he/she will be $100,000 richer, but not a "100 grand chocolate bar" richer?
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Some of you are thinking too narrowly about law. This is not a slam-dunk case for the radio station. There could very well be a contract formed through estoppel. I'm sure the attorneys in the Toy Yoda case were aware of this when they settled for an undisclosed (but sizable, no doubt) amount.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: goodoptics
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I did a search on 100 Grand, 100,000 and lady sues radio station. Nothing found. Sorry if it is a repost.
Text
Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar
JUNE 23--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. She subsequently learned that the contest was a "joke," according to her lawsuit, which names the radio station's parent company, Cumulus Media, as a defendant.
Gill's lawsuit seeks the $100,000 prize and additional punitive damages. The 22-year-old DJ Slick, whose real name is Jason Hamman, is no longer working for WLTO, a departure apparently hastened by the May stunt. Hamman, pictured at left, declined to speak about the "100 Grand" incident when contacted by phone today. In a May 25 blog posting promoting that night's giveaway, Hamman wrote that he would be presenting "our loyal listeners with a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!! It's sitting in a bag to my left ready for someone to take off with just like the Runaway bride!" The tenth caller, he added, would be "100 GRAND RICHER!!! No joke."
When a normal human being hears that from the DJ, woundn't first thing comes to his/her mind be that he/she will be $100,000 richer, but not a "100 grand chocolate bar" richer?
From a man who calls himself DJ Slick? No, not at all.
Originally posted by: CptObvious
Some of you are thinking too narrowly about law. This is not a slam-dunk case for the radio station. There could very well be a contract formed through estoppel.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: goodoptics
When a normal human being hears that from the DJ, woundn't first thing comes to his/her mind be that he/she will be $100,000 richer, but not a "100 grand chocolate bar" richer?
From a man who calls himself DJ Slick? No, not at all.
<Typical Retard>I'm thinking I'm getting a 100 thousand dollars or else a radio station after I sue them for everything you got...
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: chowderhead
so entering a contest, winning the contest for 100 grand and expecting to be paid 100 grand but actually getting a candy bar called 100 grand and demanding to be paid 100 grand is now being a selfish ass. If the radio station did nothing wrong why did they let the DJ go? You want to trick people with bogus contests to boost your ratings, fine pay for it. Can I give you 3 candy bars for your house?
Yes. That is the very definition of being a selfish ass.
They let the DJ go because of whiners like you.
Can you give me 3 candy bars for my house? No. But if I said yes and you did, can I then turn around and sue you because I expected 'candy bars' to be slang for '100 Grand' and therefore, 'reasonably expected' you to give me $300,000? I think not.
If you're going to use analogies, at least use one that is actually relevant and doesn't sound made up by a 5 year old. The words "Candy Bars" have never been used to mean $100,000. Ever.
The poster I was replying to used the "candy bars for your house" analogy, not me, you fvcking moron.
It is logical to assume that 100 grand = $100,000.Originally posted by: cKGunslinger So your whole argument is that you'd feel bad for not actually winning, so you're somehow entitled to the non-existant monetary compensation from those who made you feel that way?
Brilliant! No wonder this country is going down the tubes if that's the attitude of today's youth. Fvck personal responsibility - make someone else pay for my own stupidity! I'm going to go back and sue all that guy who made fun of me in 5th grade! He hurt my feelings! :roll:
Grow up. We don't base laws and legislation on emotions. We base them on logic and facts. That's the only way to make things 'fair.'
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: BroeBo
people can't take a joke anymore. losers. pfftt.
It's not a joke, it's truth in advertising. Consumers are protected from being mislead through false advertising, wordplay, bait and switch and 1,000 other dishonest tricks. The bottom line is: If you say you're giving something away, you damn well better give it away or you're completely exposed to a law suit.
The lady with the candy bar is almost certainly going to win or the station will settle the case for a fairly large sum. They promoted a 100 Grand giveaway, the FCC doesn't take kindly to stations promising things on the radio and then not coming through. I'd much rather be her lawyer than the lawyer for the radio station, they're screwed.
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
advertisements cannot be unfair.
What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.
The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
based on this... she wins, hands down
Originally posted by: Pepsei
it is reasonable to assume that the radio station would give out money, in fact, all the time.
however, 100,000 is a large sum of money so.....
Originally posted by: crystal
Originally posted by: Pepsei
it is reasonable to assume that the radio station would give out money, in fact, all the time.
however, 100,000 is a large sum of money so.....
Which does happen from time to time. I have a feeling she will win in this case.
Fine. Then is it just a logical for me to sue a tabloid when I find out Satan did *not* cause Brad and Jen's breakup by appearing on a box of Cracker Jacks?Originally posted by: chowderhead
It is logical to assume that 100 grand = $100,000.
The DJ deliberately misled his listeners. Personal responsibilty? Where is the responsibility of the radio station which allowed this to happen in order to boost their ratings (remember that station managers have oversight over content)? How is someone stupid for thinking 100 grand = $100,000. The contract was deliberately misleading. The radio station and the DJ are wrong and they should pay up.
The DJs encouraged thousands of listeners to laugh at her for falling for their deception.Originally posted by: Continuity27
What annoys me is the mention of her being pregnant and having three kids, what the **** does that have to do with anything?
It is her fault for assuming they would give away $100,000 for a simple call, when they specifically said "100 grand". What they did is wrong, and what she's doing is wrong. They should get a slap, and she should get her candy bar. No $100,000 and certainly no punitive damages, WHAT DAMAGES? She made a phone call, oohhhhhh lots of money in damages there. :disgust: She got her candy bar.
Originally posted by: Continuity27
What annoys me is the mention of her being pregnant and having three kids, what the **** does that have to do with anything?
It is her fault for assuming they would give away $100,000 for a simple call, when they specifically said "100 grand". What they did is wrong, and what she's doing is wrong. They should get a slap, and she should get her candy bar. No $100,000 and certainly no punitive damages, WHAT DAMAGES? She made a phone call, oohhhhhh lots of money in damages there. :disgust: She got her candy bar.
Originally posted by: Continuity27
What annoys me is the mention of her being pregnant and having three kids, what the **** does that have to do with anything?
It is her fault for assuming they would give away $100,000 for a simple call, when they specifically said "100 grand". What they did is wrong, and what she's doing is wrong. They should get a slap, and she should get her candy bar. No $100,000 and certainly no punitive damages, WHAT DAMAGES? She made a phone call, oohhhhhh lots of money in damages there. :disgust: She got her candy bar.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Fine. Then is it just a logical for me to sue a tabloid when I find out Satan did *not* cause Brad and Jen's breakup by appearing on a box of Cracker Jacks?Originally posted by: chowderhead
It is logical to assume that 100 grand = $100,000.
The DJ deliberately misled his listeners. Personal responsibilty? Where is the responsibility of the radio station which allowed this to happen in order to boost their ratings (remember that station managers have oversight over content)? How is someone stupid for thinking 100 grand = $100,000. The contract was deliberately misleading. The radio station and the DJ are wrong and they should pay up.
Fortune cookies have "lucky numbers" in them that 'mysteriously' match up with lotto drawings. Any "reasonable person" would assume they are getting some inside information and should play the big game. Should they sue for $415M when they don't win?
Ashton Crotchface hosts show where he "punks" people into thinking their cars are getting vandalized. I think afterwards, when they find out it was all a hoax, they should sue and really get their cars vandalized, because, dammit, that's what they were expecting to happen, right?
:roll: