What does a house purchase have anything to do with bankruptcy? Let's assume she got the $100,000. At least $15,000 will go to taxes. That leaves $85,000. Let's assume you spend $5,000 on toys, clothes, and other celebration items. That leaves $80,000. Assume she buys a car/minivan for $25,000. That leaves $55,000. $55,000 towards a house. The prize is not a recurring income source and you've spent the remaining amount. She has more assets but the ability to pay living expenses or future debts have not changed.
I fail to see why she is an idiot. If a radio station says they are offering a 100 grand, is she suppose to automatically assume it's a fake contest? And really, what do you think her attitude should be when she realizes it's a fake contest? "Oh, okay, that's cool.. at least I got a candy bar"? She would have been an idiot if she didn't sue.
I'd like to hear the actual spot where they advertised this contest. I'm betting that any halfway intelligent radio listener (kind of an oxymoron) could have figured out exactly what was going on. Did they say "one hundred thousand dollars"? Probably not. Sorry, but this woman deserves nothing.
Is she supposed to automatically assume it's a fake contest... no. But to rule out the possibility that the contest is ONLY awarding one hundred thousand dollars... to me, that is questionable. If the radio station used the terminology, "100 grand", then arguably they are not lying by giving her a "100 GRAND" candy bar. Is it a cruel and juvenile prank... yes or no (depends on what is humorous to you, or anyone for that matter). Is the radio station lying by giving her a 100 GRAND candy bar... to me , not at all. However, if the radio station used the terminology " call in to win one hundred thousand dollars," and then tried to give the woman a "100 GRAND" candybar, then I think a lawsuit would have obvious merit because the station would be saying one thing and doing another. I also called her an idiot in this thread. I do not think she is an idiot, because she was duped. I believe she is an idiot because, if their is a lawsuit, to me it is frivilous and idiotic like fat people suing fast food chains.
Even if the radio station didn't abide by some regulation or law, she still shouldn't be entitled to $100,000. That's like making a bet with a friend for a billion bucks then trying to sue him for it. In legal cases, I know a joke does not make an enforceable contract.
It's not even arguable. She won what they said she would win. What's next, a radio station giving the 5th caller a five, and offering a high five, and then getting sued for not giving some dude five bucks. It certainly doesn't sound like the word dollar was ever used. It could have been a candy bar, it could have been 100 thousand grains of rice, 100 thousand pesos...it could have been anything that fit the description of 100 grand.
It certainly doesn't sound like the word dollar was ever used. It could have been a candy bar, it could have been 100 thousand grains of rice, 100 thousand pesos...it could have been anything that fit the description of 100 grand. This is just silly. If you see a Rockets commercial advertising "season tickets", you have the right to assume that when you purchase them, you will get Rockets season tickets, and not season tickets to the zoo. Companies are not allowed to use deceptive advertising and not deliver the product promised - that certainly creates a legitimate case to sue. It is quite clear to anyone with any common sense than they were trying to deceive listeners with the use of the term "100 Grand" - who's going to have a contest to give away a candy bar? The best penalty the station could get is having to pay out the $100,000, in punitive damages if nothing else. It will teach them in the future not to use deceit to build listenership.
Um...what exactly were they selling or even advertising here? It was a contest. If I win season tickets to the zoo but not the Rockets....crap, but the zoo is still cool. If I PAID for Rockets season tickets and got season tickets to the zoo, then I'd have a complaint. But considering that it was clear to anyoen with any common sense, as you point out, that they were trying to confuse listeners, it even further highlights the fact that she probably shouldn't have expected 100,000 dollars. Again, it could have been anything.
I agree. Unless the tape shows in a very obvious way that this was a joke I would have to go with her deserving the money. The company has (or should have) obligations, and in those it is one not to deceive when advertising a product. I doubt the lady thought "Darn, I thought I won $100 grand. Oh well, the candy bar tastes nice!"
me too. (well...not really ) but it's quite possible the contest was an obvious hoax. We just don't know.
Um...what exactly were they selling or even advertising here? They were advertising a contest for "100 Grand". But considering that it was clear to anyoen with any common sense, as you point out, that they were trying to confuse listeners, it even further highlights the fact that she probably shouldn't have expected 100,000 dollars. Again, it could have been anything. Ummm, it's clear <B>now</B> that they were trying to confuse listeners after they told her it was a candy bar - it obviously wasn't clear at the time, or that would defeat the purpose. They were trying to deceive listeners into believing they were having a contest for $100,000. They benefitted financially from the promotion by getting people to listen to them all day long under false premises.
Exactly. They were advertising a contest for "100 Grand." So did they lie by giving the lady a "100 Grand" candy bar - no. If they told her it was for "one hundred thousand dollars" and tried to pawn off the candy bar then sue them accordingly. Going back to what others have mentioned, if there was a sound-bite, maybe a better conclusion could be drawn as to intentions or if disclaimers were given, or whatever.
Exactly. They were advertising a contest for "100 Grand." So did they lie by giving the lady a "100 Grand" candy bar - no. I didn't say they lied - I said they deceived. The law doesn't allow deceptive advertising. Lying would be a seperate issue - that would be outright fraud.
Going back to what others have mentioned, if there was a sound-bite, maybe a better conclusion could be drawn as to intentions Do you really think that when they advertised a contest for "100 Grand", they wanted listeners to believe they were having a contest to win a candy bar?
No kidding. They wanted people to think it was for a 100 grand and that's why they had a contest for 100 grand not a "100 grand candy bar". They know they screwed up and that's why they tried to buy her off with 5 grand.
