MongoTheGeek said:
For some reason I read units as eunuchs . A day without eunuchs would be a bad day in the harem.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Radio Contest Winner Sues Over Candy Bar
- Thread starter craigdawg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
For some reason I read units as eunuchs . A day without eunuchs would be a bad day in the harem.
JonMaker said:
It's nice to see another Mac user from the Maritimes here. Where do you live?
The malls here aren't that great, I don't usually go to malls ever though, I've been to big ones little ones, one's in the US ones in Toronto, I don't usually find anything I like at malls.
just to play devils advocates, lets not forget that joke or no joke, any contest offered by anyone is meant to be a form of advertising, to get people to listen and in turn, get better ratings so they can increase the ad revenue.
Since the radio station was using it as an advertisement, why should they be able to pull a fast one. And it doesn't really matter in my mind that they didn't say "a" hundred grand or whatever. They clearly wanted to make people think they were going to get $100,000, otherwise there's no joke, is there.
So I think there's a fair legal argument that this was a advertisment and as such, they are subject to the laws requiring them to be honest. I think the woman's got a case there and I don't necessarilly think its unscrupulous to go after it. There's a lot of cases that look frivilous that really aren't (like the mcdonalds coffee burn case. There was a lot more to it then just someone getting burned through their own stupidity)
And I might ad that attacking the woman because she should be working instead of lsitening tot he radio, or for being stupid, or whatever, really doesn't ahve any affect on whether or not the radio station broke existing laws in place to protect consumers and prevent companies from taking advantage of people. That's the only question and I think there's certainly room for debate there.
The true frivilous lawsuits in my mind are the one's were someone ducks responsibility for their own actions by saying a company or the goverment or a person should have been able to stop them from doing something stupid. If we want personal responsibility, we should also advocate corporate responsibility. And I think there's a fair interpretationt hat the radio station is ducking its own responsibilty to follow the letter of the law in this case.
Since the radio station was using it as an advertisement, why should they be able to pull a fast one. And it doesn't really matter in my mind that they didn't say "a" hundred grand or whatever. They clearly wanted to make people think they were going to get $100,000, otherwise there's no joke, is there.
So I think there's a fair legal argument that this was a advertisment and as such, they are subject to the laws requiring them to be honest. I think the woman's got a case there and I don't necessarilly think its unscrupulous to go after it. There's a lot of cases that look frivilous that really aren't (like the mcdonalds coffee burn case. There was a lot more to it then just someone getting burned through their own stupidity)
And I might ad that attacking the woman because she should be working instead of lsitening tot he radio, or for being stupid, or whatever, really doesn't ahve any affect on whether or not the radio station broke existing laws in place to protect consumers and prevent companies from taking advantage of people. That's the only question and I think there's certainly room for debate there.
The true frivilous lawsuits in my mind are the one's were someone ducks responsibility for their own actions by saying a company or the goverment or a person should have been able to stop them from doing something stupid. If we want personal responsibility, we should also advocate corporate responsibility. And I think there's a fair interpretationt hat the radio station is ducking its own responsibilty to follow the letter of the law in this case.
We all are passing our own judgments without hearing all the tapes that led to this. It may end up being a case of the courts deciding if a reasonable person expects $100,000 in cash - or was there reasons to believe that it was a prank?
MBHockey said:
Thanks for the link. It does shed some light. It still goes to how a jury will rule on reasonable expectations. Based on this, a jury of "peers" may agree that 100 Grand could mean $100,000 dollars. Depends on state law on deceptive contests. I assume many states have clear rules as to how a prize is to be advertised. If not the station may win for it could have been a 100 grand in pennies.
As long as there is no documentation, from the station, stating that the winner of the contest will "receive $100,000 USD" i really do not see how this lady has a case...she's probably just hoping to scare the station into settling out of court.
I hope the station isn't that silly...
I hope the station isn't that silly...
Well Clear Channel got slapped silly with their last "big breast" radio contest.Chip NoVaMac said:
A $755k FCC fine for that contest they ran. Of course the bulk of that was indecency.
They usually get nailed by the FCC, disgusted listener, and sometimes the state's AG, so it can become an expensive contest if they piss off the wrong people.
Hopefully this lady gets smart and files a complaint with the FCC (deceptive contest) and her state AG for deceptive trade practices.
runninmac said:Whats the toy yoda about? I find when the USA is sue happy it can get pretty crazy and funny. Like when people break into other peoples houses and sue them becuase they got hurt while breaking in.
A Hooters waitress was told by her co-workers that she won a Toyota. So, they took her out to the parking lot to show her the prize: a toy yoda. She sued and won an actual Toyota (or some other car I guess)
Regardless of what everyone thinks about the technicality of the case, the woman is probably going to win. Someone mentioned this earlier, but in 2002 a radio station did a promotion for a "Toy Yoda" and when the woman who won found out she was not going to get a Toyota, she sued the radio station and a little while later the station bought her a brand new Four Runner.
I'm surprised that this radio station hadn't heard about that "prank" before. This station will most likely have to pay up.
I'm surprised that this radio station hadn't heard about that "prank" before. This station will most likely have to pay up.
There is an old joke that goes...
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean???
A good start.....
I think lawsuits like this are just totally stupid and take up way too much of our court systems time.. Imagine if you will that you are falsely accused of a crime but get arrested anyway. To get your name cleared and to get out of jail you have to have a court date. You think to yourself no big deal, I will get my day in court and this will be all over.. Then you get the news that the next available court date is 5-7 months down the road because the judge is tied up in silly lawsuits like this one..
All of this is because lawyers work on "Contingency" basis.. In other words it does not cost this women a dime to sue because the lawyer takes the case and does not collect unless they win the case. When and if they win the lawyer will get appx 30-35% of the settlement. In this case $30,000 US.
Oh well, I have ranted enough.
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean???
A good start.....
I think lawsuits like this are just totally stupid and take up way too much of our court systems time.. Imagine if you will that you are falsely accused of a crime but get arrested anyway. To get your name cleared and to get out of jail you have to have a court date. You think to yourself no big deal, I will get my day in court and this will be all over.. Then you get the news that the next available court date is 5-7 months down the road because the judge is tied up in silly lawsuits like this one..
All of this is because lawyers work on "Contingency" basis.. In other words it does not cost this women a dime to sue because the lawyer takes the case and does not collect unless they win the case. When and if they win the lawyer will get appx 30-35% of the settlement. In this case $30,000 US.
Oh well, I have ranted enough.
I was absolutely livid when I found out my PowerBook was neither an actual book nor made out of Power!mkrishnan said:I was very angry when I found out my Apple computer was not made out of fruit.
Counterfit said:I was absolutely livid when I found out my PowerBook was neither an actual book nor made out of Power!
Two people makes a class action, right? Let's go get 'em!!!!!
Dr. Dastardly said:A pool, a dog run and a storage building!? I'm looking at a place in Seattle and am stoked that I could fit a BBQ and maybe two chairs.
For $100,000???
mkrishnan said:I was very angry when I found out my Apple computer was not made out of fruit.
Hey, you should sue. Like those that sued because their 17" CRT monitor was not a viewable 17" CRT monitor.
Capt Underpants said:
It is amazing what a change in location can do for real estate prices. I live in Southern Indiana just across the river from Louisville KY. In Louisville a 1000 Sq foot home with no basement built in the 50's goes for 100,000. 20 miles west however in So. IN 100,000 can get you a brand new 1300 sq foot on an unfinished basement.
- Status