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

[Night201]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
I think others have done the same at other stations if I remember correct. Can;t remember what happend?

Opie and Anthony did this about a bizzilion years ago...

Saved here for link:

 

[chowderhead]

all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

 

[KarenMarie]

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.

Without anyone having read the actual contract it is hard to say what they intentional and willfully did.

There was a contest for 100 grand. She got 100 grand. She assumed it was $100,000 cash. She expected it to be $100,000 cash. It was a 100 grand candy bar. She got 100 grand. And unless the contract explicitly details a cash prize of $100,000... she got the 100 grand the Contract promised.

Edit: And I keep saying that the DJ did a sh!tty thing... should it end up in court? well, only if she can prove that the contract was for a cash prize.

 

[Night201]

Originally posted by: SKORPI0
You've just won 100 Grand - Flash animation. :laugh:

Yeah, this is the Opie and Anthony Prank - Done years ago...maybe 5 or more.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Slightly disappointed, but then again after reflecting on what was said, common sense would tell me I didn't have a pot to piss in regarding a dispute.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Would I be pissed is I was expecting something for nothing and got less than what I was expecting? I guess so. But last I checked, being pissed and made to feel like a selfish ass was *not* grounds for 'breach of contract' lawsuits for ungodly amounts of money.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Would I be pissed is I was expecting something for nothing and got less than what I was expecting? I guess so. But last I checked, being pissed and made to feel like a selfish ass was *not* grounds for 'breach of contract' lawsuits for ungodly amounts of money.

Yes, the lady should be beaten for sueing and her legal representation should be dismembered for agreeing to take the case.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: 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.

Um sure it does, it's called misrepresentation.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wrong wrong 1000 times wrong. An advertisement creates a contract that binds the advertiser to the terms of the ad. They don't have to reach a "meeting of the minds" with everyone that reads the ad. Whether it's written or verbal, in this case the contract is one-sided and in effect the second it's on the air. They had a binding contract to deliver 100 grand the very moment the DJ opened his mouth. Truth in advertising laws demand that the contract is held up to the standard of what a reasonable viewer would think it implied. The whole case is whether it's reasonable for a listener to think of $100,000 dollars when they hear a contest for "100 Grand". It's a slam dunk unless the DJ specifically mentioned a candy bar.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Would I be pissed is I was expecting something for nothing and got less than what I was expecting? I guess so. But last I checked, being pissed and made to feel like a selfish ass was *not* grounds for 'breach of contract' lawsuits for ungodly amounts of money.

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?

 

[dabuddha]

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.

The radio station profited by their little idiotic stunt. Stupid OTers don't profit by being dicks to other people.

 

[dabuddha]

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?"

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.

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:

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The whole case is whether it's reasonable for a listener to think of $100,000 dollars when they hear a contest for "100 Grand". It's a slam dunk unless the DJ specifically mentioned a candy bar.

No law was broken by letting radio listeners misinterpret the vague/slang phrase "100 grand", so no, it's not a "slam dunk".

If they stated "$100,000.00 US Dollars" or "100 grand in cash" you might have a case, but i'm pretty certain that's not what happened here.

Any chance of misinterpretation is eliminated in a binding contract by using very precise, narrow language, and DEFINITIONS which spell out precisely what is to be exchanged. The fact of the matter is that there never existed a contract between the DJ and listeners for $100,000 because this language was not used.

Simply because a common interpretation of the vague/slang phrase "100 grand" happens to be $100,000 does not automatically entitle the winning listener to receive $100,000.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Would I be pissed is I was expecting something for nothing and got less than what I was expecting? I guess so. But last I checked, being pissed and made to feel like a selfish ass was *not* grounds for 'breach of contract' lawsuits for ungodly amounts of money.

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.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

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.

The radio station profited by their little idiotic stunt. Stupid OTers don't profit by being dicks to other people.

They were forced to terminate a popular DJ and stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in a frivolous lawsuit. What a nice little profit!

Stupid OTers earn the admiration and repect of other stupier OTers. I'd rank that up there with a value of say.. about tree-fitty. Still, much better than -$100,000, wouldn't you say?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

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.

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:

And how exactly did you make that brilliant, logical deduction?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all the holier than thou people that are slamming the woman for her suit, I sure wouldn't mind if they fell for the exact same contest. right.

Would I be pissed is I was expecting something for nothing and got less than what I was expecting? I guess so. But last I checked, being pissed and made to feel like a selfish ass was *not* grounds for 'breach of contract' lawsuits for ungodly amounts of money.

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.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dabuddha

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.

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:

And how exactly did you make that brilliant, logical deduction?

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.

 

[V00DOO]

This reminds me of a radio station giving away the key to a Porsche. The winner got exactly that was advertised, a key to a Porsche, but no Porsche. They sued of course but Idon't know the outcome. Idiots!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The whole case is whether it's reasonable for a listener to think of $100,000 dollars when they hear a contest for "100 Grand". It's a slam dunk unless the DJ specifically mentioned a candy bar.

No law was broken by letting radio listeners misinterpret the vague/slang phrase "100 grand", so no, it's not a "slam dunk".

If they stated "$100,000.00 US Dollars" or "100 grand in cash" you might have a case, but i'm pretty certain that's not what happened here.

Any chance of misinterpretation is eliminated in a binding contract by using very precise, narrow language, and DEFINITIONS which spell out precisely what is to be exchanged. The fact of the matter is that there never existed a contract between the DJ and listeners for $100,000 because this language was not used.

Simply because a common interpretation of the vague/slang phrase "100 grand" happens to be $100,000 does not automatically entitle the winning listener to receive $100,000.

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

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hope she wins it will help put an end to juvenile humor thats has been taking over the air waves on both side of the border.

Reminds me of Bart winning the elephant.

Stampy!
Agreed, this is a cruel trick to play on people, the weasels doing "jokes" like this should lose their jobs after their radio stations pay out a nice settlement.

I agree, I cant count how many people in a gut reaction would do something stupid thinking they won 100 Grand. Go spend alot etc... and she wouldnt know it was a trick till the next day. Lame DJs is all it is, I bet shell win, and she should. It's their own fault for doing that. Im not saying she should win because she deserves it, but because the radio station deserves to lose that money for that lame joke.

 

[Pudgygiant]

See, I would have said something like "this is a SWEET contest" or "we're as NUTTY as this prize!".

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Dulanic

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hope she wins it will help put an end to juvenile humor thats has been taking over the air waves on both side of the border.

Reminds me of Bart winning the elephant.

Stampy!
Agreed, this is a cruel trick to play on people, the weasels doing "jokes" like this should lose their jobs after their radio stations pay out a nice settlement.

I agree, I cant count how many people in a gut reaction would do something stupid thinking they won 100 Grand. Go spend alot etc... and she wouldnt know it was a trick till the next day. Lame DJs is all it is, I bet shell win, and she should. It's their own fault for doing that. Im not saying she should win because she deserves it, but because the radio station deserves to lose that money for that lame joke.

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? :|

 

[EmperorIQ]

bah, if they said 100 grand, thinking to trick others, it was in their mind that the public was assuming $100,000, so if someone wins, they can't just change it to something else, that's just wrong. She should get her $100,000 but nothing more, except maybe some legal fees.

 

[gsaldivar]

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.

When you enter into a contract to deliver $100,000.00 but fail to specify at what time the money will be delivered, or at what place, or in what denomination, then you have an "ambiguity". However, the deliberate lack of any specifc terms other than "100 grand", a vague/slang term at best, does not automatically hold the station liable for whatever the other party might interpret.

The fact of the matter is that the radio station never entered into a contract to deliver $100,000.00 US Dollars. Your remedy to a single ambiguous term in the "contract" MAKES the plaintiff's entire case.

This case will never see a jury - it's just beyond ridiculous.