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

[cKGunslinger]

Contest description on DJ's blog

Boy, that sure looks like a binding, legal contract, fully on the up-n-up to me! :roll: Being a total dupe does not entitle you to free money.


Maybe I'll sue the local Applebee's, since the number I called on the wall in the men's room did not lead to "the best blow-job of my life."

 

[zendari]

I hope she dies.

 

[cambre]

I don't know why people keep going on about contracts. At best, this was an oral contract. It probably isn't even an oral contract since there doesn't appear to be any consideration on the part of the radio station. Even if it was, oral contracts are only valid for goods and services up to $500. More than that and it has to be in writing or it is unenforcable.

For there to be an estoppel argument, she would need to prove that she was promised USD$100,000 and subsequently changed her actions. For example, upon hearing of such good fortune, she went out and bought a car. Nowhere was it stated that she would receive any sort of monetary compensation so therefore, the "contract" was for her to receive 100 Grand, which she did.

As for buying houses with candy bars. If on the bill of sale you write "three (3) 100 Grand," you'll be fine.

 

[Safeway]

That DJ was an idiot, she deserves her $100,000.

 

[Last Rezort]

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.

Got a link?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Last Rezort

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.

Got a link?

Read the thread much?

 

[lobadobadingdong]

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.

that just means she wants them to pay for her lawyers and time spent chasing the $100,000.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong

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.

that just means she wants them to pay for her lawyers and time spent chasing the $100,000.

But she already got her 100 grand.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

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.

exactly. ppl in america are always looking for the easy way out

Kinda like the Radio stations/DJs or Hooters? They get all that advertising because of the size of the prize.

It's fraud, I'd be pissed too.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: maziwanka

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.

exactly. ppl in america are always looking for the easy way out

Kinda like the Radio stations/DJs or Hooters? They get all that advertising because of the size of the prize.

It's fraud, I'd be pissed too.

Would you really be that naive to think you were getting $100,000 when the offer was clearly for "100 grand"?

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: maziwanka

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.

exactly. ppl in america are always looking for the easy way out

Kinda like the Radio stations/DJs or Hooters? They get all that advertising because of the size of the prize.

It's fraud, I'd be pissed too.

how is it fraud? He said the 10th caller would win 100 grand. And she did. He did not specify a candy bar nor cash. She assumed it was cash and she was wrong. Does that entitle her to $100,000 cash and punitive damage?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
That is what pissed me off the most. punitive damages? For what?... and bringing her poor little kids ino it... ferchristsake! :roll: and how embarrased she was and oh oh oh the big bad mean radio station.. BooHoo!

Unless her lawyer can prove that they wilfully and purposely lied or decieved her... he should not get anything more than the 100 grand he already has.

What the radio station did was sh!tty....but let her prove that the DJ ...ONCE said it was gonna be cash.

No, the punitative damages are to the station to send them a message. Essentially the court is saying "you were bad, now pay", they KNEW what they were doing. Again, it's fraud, and they should pay. What are you going to do, jail the "station" for fraud? No, you take $$ from them. And who do you give it to? The person they frauded, IE the contestant.

The contest was for $100,000. That's what they were "supposed" to be on the line for anyways. Making them pay just that, only makes them hold up to their original agreement. The additional $ is to make them learn a lesson.

 

[Continuity27]

Ignorance is NOT an excuse people! If you don't know that "100 grand" is a candy bar, it's not anyone elses fault but your own. I could drive down a one way street and say I was ignorant of the sign, but will I get very far?

It may be a cheap way to get publicity or ratings, but that radio station/DJ should not have to pay $100,000. They should pay exactly what the deal was made for, "100 grand". If you assume that's money, that's your problem. As far as I know, most deals for large sums of money aren't made using slang terms.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
That is what pissed me off the most. punitive damages? For what?... and bringing her poor little kids ino it... ferchristsake! :roll: and how embarrased she was and oh oh oh the big bad mean radio station.. BooHoo!

Unless her lawyer can prove that they wilfully and purposely lied or decieved her... he should not get anything more than the 100 grand he already has.

What the radio station did was sh!tty....but let her prove that the DJ ...ONCE said it was gonna be cash.

No, the punitative damages are to the station to send them a message. Essentially the court is saying "you were bad, now pay", they KNEW what they were doing. Again, it's fraud, and they should pay. What are you going to do, jail the "station" for fraud? No, you take $$ from them. And who do you give it to? The person they frauded, IE the contestant.

The contest was for $100,000. That's what they were "supposed" to be on the line for anyways. Making them pay just that, only makes them hold up to their original agreement. The additional $ is to make them learn a lesson.

I am not arguing that their lack of clarity was sh!tty. It was.. they should have been explicit in whether it was cash or candy. But they did neither. Where was he fraud? They did not say... It is one hundred thousand US dollars.... they said i was 100 grand. And it was. The DJ said 100 grand... the caller wanted to hear one thousand US dollars and now wants to sue when she got exactly what the DJ said it was 100 grand.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
Would you really be that naive to think you were getting $100,000 when the offer was clearly for "100 grand"?

Radio stations give out lots of $, a local one here used to give out $10,000 every week. it's not naive to think they might have had a legit prize of $100,000.

"100 grand" is the same as "$100 grand" in spoken form, which was the stations advertising media, radio. No written words or pictures. It's an OBVIOUS play on words, but that doesn't excuse them. They know the limits of radio better than us.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
That is what pissed me off the most. punitive damages? For what?... and bringing her poor little kids ino it... ferchristsake! :roll: and how embarrased she was and oh oh oh the big bad mean radio station.. BooHoo!

Unless her lawyer can prove that they wilfully and purposely lied or decieved her... he should not get anything more than the 100 grand he already has.

What the radio station did was sh!tty....but let her prove that the DJ ...ONCE said it was gonna be cash.

No, the punitative damages are to the station to send them a message. Essentially the court is saying "you were bad, now pay", they KNEW what they were doing. Again, it's fraud, and they should pay. What are you going to do, jail the "station" for fraud? No, you take $$ from them. And who do you give it to? The person they frauded, IE the contestant.

The contest was for $100,000. That's what they were "supposed" to be on the line for anyways. Making them pay just that, only makes them hold up to their original agreement. The additional $ is to make them learn a lesson.

I am not arguing that their lack of clarity was sh!tty. It was.. they should have been explicit in whether it was cash or candy. But they did neither. Where was he fraud? They did not say... It is one hundred thousand US dollars.... they said i was 100 grand. And it was. The DJ said 100 grand... the caller wanted to hear one thousand US dollars and now wants to sue when she got exactly what the DJ said it was 100 grand.

The fraud is in being willingly deceitful. They gained advertising because of it. They should pay.

edit: if it was supposed to be a candy bar prize, why didn't they just say that? So they will get a bigger bump in advertising.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Whatever happened to truth in advertising?

 

[Quasmo]

It doesn't seem like they advertised it on the station... the DJ was simply doing a bit... therefore no extra advertisement revenue was generated. If a Radio station gave away $100,000 you'll be damn sure they wont offer it to the 10th caller... you can generate 10 times the revenue if you ask for the 100th caller, and people will still keep calling and listening in. IMO it doesn't seem like a legit contest in the first place. I hope she gets kicked out on her ass and then counter sued.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
It doesn't seem like they advertised it on the station... the DJ was simply doing a bit... therefore no extra advertisement revenue was generated. If a Radio station gave away $100,000 you'll be damn sure they wont offer it to the 10th caller... you can generate 10 times the revenue if you ask for the 100th caller, and people will still keep calling and listening in. IMO it doesn't seem like a legit contest in the first place. I hope she gets kicked out on her ass and then counter sued.

Even if the station didn't advertise it (they are still responsible for content their DJs run) they still gained. Though if it was just a single bit, not much. However slight, the increased listeners will/should show on their ratings. Higher ratings = higher price/ad/sec.

Even if they don't make those gains, it was their intent.

Let's be clear here.

The DJ advertised "100 grand" specifically because it would be confused with "$100 grand".
The reason for ANY promo is the increase listeners.
The reason for more listeners is more revenue from sales.

 

[Psycrash]

I heard about this while back, is she getting the money for real?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

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.

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?

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:

umm, how are you damaged in any way in any of these three situations? First case, the stars named would have to sue for slander but they will lose because the tabloids will always write their articles by interviewing someone who <b>believes</b> Satan ...
you have no standing. The lady actually called and won a deceptive contest sponsored by the DJ and radio station.

Fortune cookie :roll: ? Where does it ever say they will 'mysteriously' match up with winning numbers. They are numbers. The radio station / DJ advertised a contest with the 10th caller winning 100 grand. She called and was the tenth caller and won.

Punked - again, you have no standing. The stars would have to sue. They don't. If they don't sign a waiver, the segment they show don't get aired.

Again, the radio station during the May ratings sweep periods (used to calculate ad revenues for all stations) allowed a diliberately misleading and deceptive contest to air in order to boost ratings. They are at fault and need to pay.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Even if the station didn't advertise it (they are still responsible for content their DJs run) they still gained. Though if it was just a single bit, not much. However slight, the increased listeners will/should show on their ratings. Higher ratings = higher price/ad/sec.

Even if they don't make those gains, it was their intent.

Let's be clear here.

The DJ advertised "100 grand" specifically because it would be confused with "$100 grand".
The reason for ANY promo is the increase listeners.
The reason for more listeners is more revenue from sales.

Again, I am not saying that being unclear was not sh!tty. But everyone is assuming what was in the DJ's mind. And that he had it in his mind to purposely trick and embarrass this particular woman. Now.. while it is my opinion that he probably did... my opinion is not the rule of law. If she can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) he said one thousand dollars US cash ... or.. b) that he purposely meant to mislead or embarrass this particular woman I could understand that she would be pissed. Should she get $100,000 cash? Dunno... I would not award it to her, but some jury might.. but punitive damages?.. shows how greedy she is.

 

[Phoenix86]

So let me get this right, if I somehow "screw" you on a deal, it's OK, as long as the term I verbally screwed you on has another meaning?

IE "will you (except/accept) this (faulty) wiring job?" verbally can mean to exempt, or agree to, complete opposites.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
That is what pissed me off the most. punitive damages? For what?... and bringing her poor little kids ino it... ferchristsake! :roll: and how embarrased she was and oh oh oh the big bad mean radio station.. BooHoo!

Unless her lawyer can prove that they wilfully and purposely lied or decieved her... he should not get anything more than the 100 grand he already has.

What the radio station did was sh!tty....but let her prove that the DJ ...ONCE said it was gonna be cash.

No, the punitative damages are to the station to send them a message. Essentially the court is saying "you were bad, now pay", they KNEW what they were doing. Again, it's fraud, and they should pay. What are you going to do, jail the "station" for fraud? No, you take $$ from them. And who do you give it to? The person they frauded, IE the contestant.

The contest was for $100,000. That's what they were "supposed" to be on the line for anyways. Making them pay just that, only makes them hold up to their original agreement. The additional $ is to make them learn a lesson.

I am not arguing that their lack of clarity was sh!tty. It was.. they should have been explicit in whether it was cash or candy. But they did neither. Where was he fraud? They did not say... It is one hundred thousand US dollars.... they said i was 100 grand. And it was. The DJ said 100 grand... the caller wanted to hear one thousand US dollars and now wants to sue when she got exactly what the DJ said it was 100 grand.

I completely agree.

 

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: maziwanka

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.

exactly. ppl in america are always looking for the easy way out

Kinda like the Radio stations/DJs or Hooters? They get all that advertising because of the size of the prize.

It's fraud, I'd be pissed too.

how is it fraud? He said the 10th caller would win 100 grand. And she did. He did not specify a candy bar nor cash. She assumed it was cash and she was wrong. Does that entitle her to $100,000 cash and punitive damage?

The fraud lies within the difference in the two following statements. Can you spot it?

1 - I will give you 100 grand.
2 - I will give you a 100 grand.