My colleague Eric Goldman (who teaches Contracts) reports on a prize case from Kentucky. A woman listens to the radio because she hears that at a certain time, people can call in and the tenth caller will receive "$100 Grand." She is the tenth caller, and believes that she will receive $100,000, and even tells her children about all the things they will buy to better their life. However, the radio station offers her a 100 Grand candy bar. She is holding out for the cash.
So, would a reasonable person know it was a joke? I guess it depends on the promos for the contest. But, without hearing the promos, I would bet on the radio listener. Unless her town in Kentucky is where they make the 100 Grand candy bar, the chances are good she has ever heard of it. This is not a popular candy bar, and I haven't seen one in probably 25 years. Compared to say a "kissing booth" where the promise was 100 chocolatey, gooey kisses for $1, and it turned out the kisses were Hershey's kisses. Also, think about the two sentences "You'll win 100 grand if you're the tenth caller" AND "You'll win a 100 grand if you're the tenth caller." Which did the radio announcer say? Did he/she use the article "a"? If not, then I go for the listener. Apparently, though, this radio trick has been used before. In this audio clip, the announcer says "you win a hundred grand."
Does this remind anyone else of the WKRP in Cincinnati episode where the DJ read a promo as announcing a $50,000 contest rather than a $5000 contest?
UPDATE: Based on the wording that the now-fired DJ used on the radio's blog, I would say that the listener will soon be able to buy as many candy bars as she wants, up to $100,000 minus attorney fees. ("you'll be 100 GRAND RICHER!!") Thanks to Eric for the follow-up.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8342390cf53ef
Links to weblogs that reference Fascinating Contracts Exam Question:
A ..." [more] (Tracked on June 24, 2005 @ 11:48)
1. Posted by Eric Goldman on June 23, 2005 @ 11:40 | Permalink
Hmm, you may be really dating yourself with those WKRP references. And you're right about the weak distribution of the "100 Grand" candy bar--I had a tough time even finding the product on Nestle's websites. The radio link you found is hilarious!!! (I like how the caller ends the call). Eric.
2. Posted by Chad Oldfather on June 23, 2005 @ 12:06 | Permalink
Pick 'n Save on Oakland, bottom tier of the candy racks in at least one of the checkout lanes. I briefly contemplated buying one just the other night. This, of course, because the 100 Grand (known back in the day as the $100,000 Bar) is one of the finest confections ever.
3. Posted by Chad Oldfather on June 23, 2005 @ 12:16 | Permalink
Even more convenient location: Vending machine, bottom floor, Sensenbrenner Hall. Interlaced with the Caramellos, and right next to another all-time classic, the Salted Nut Roll. A mere 70 cents for two oblong nuggets of heaven.
4. Posted by John Steele on June 23, 2005 @ 13:21 | Permalink
I think there was a similar case about a radio station and a new Toyota, which turned out to be a new toy Yoda (the Star Wars character). I think the listener won the suit, but I'm not sure.
5. Posted by DannyNoonan on June 23, 2005 @ 14:49 | Permalink
Wasn't there a famous case about a guy that saved enough Pepsi points to buy a harrier jet or F-16 or something like that? Is it reasonable to think that a local radio station in Kentucky is givving away $100,000?
6. Posted by Dave! on June 23, 2005 @ 15:51 | Permalink
Yeah, that was Leonard v. Pepsico which has a great opinion by Kimba Wood... it was one of my favs from Contracts last semester. It contains some real gems, like:
"Plaintiff states that he 'noted that the Harrier Jet was not among the items described in the catalog, but this did not affect [his] understanding of the offer.' It should have."
7. Posted by Christine on June 23, 2005 @ 17:04 | Permalink
I think Eric teaches the Pepsi case, and from what I understand (Dave, tell me if I'm wrong), part of the point is that no one would really think they could win Harrier jet, which is illegal for Pepsi to sell and an individual to own. Pepsi never wanted anyone to believe that the jet was available. Here, the DJs absolutely want to fool someone. So, it's hard to argue that no one could reasonable think that winning $100,000 was possible when the whole contest is designed to make some poor fool think exactly that.
8. Posted by John Steele on June 23, 2005 @ 23:02 | Permalink
The Toyota - toy yoda case was settled, alas, and we won't have an opinion for future guidance.
http://www.heferito.com/toyyoda.asp
9. Posted by dsnone@forgetit.com on June 24, 2005 @ 16:23 | Permalink
Sorry, isn't this just peerless? There is no meeting of the minds. She might be able to get a promissory estoppel case or a fraud case or even some sort of false advertising case; but the K case seems clear.
10. Posted by bob on June 24, 2005 @ 16:44 | Permalink
thats what i thought... is being the 10th caller realy giving consideration?
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
