I read this and it gave me my daily laugh, it happened a few years ago but its still funny
That girl has no business working at Hooters.
But if the promotion was in print with the word TOYOTA on it, she may have a case.
They already settled apparently ... the amount she was awarded wasn't disclosed ... regardless I'm glad she's not working at Hooters anymore, but, after she "blows" through the settlement money how will she fund her coke habit is what I'm wondering.
It was a dumb joke. They took her out to the parking lot for that.
I personally don't understand suing for something like that and this is why our entire legal system (and health care system) is fucked up right now.
People want to sue for anything and everything they can and no one says anything against it.
Actually its against the law to falsely advertise like the way they did. The words TOYOTA do not have to be printed in words for her to have a case either. Its called Justifiable Reliance, and according to it if the misrepresentation contributes substantially to the misled party's decision to enter the contract then they are entitled to relief. In this case probably EVERYONE who entered that contest agreed to enter into the contract thinking that the the prize was in fact a toyota and not a TOY YODA.
so before you go hating on the legal system just realize that if you had been in that contest and wasted your time trying to get first place thinking that you will ultimately win a car only to find out your going to be screwed over, you would probably be pist off too because you would have been defrauded.
Let me start by saying I like the concept of justifiable reliance. It makes perfect sense for our legal system.
However, is this girl justified in believing she was winning a brand new car for selling the most beer? So she has a good couple weeks in beer sales, then somehow this gives Hooter's enough extra money to buy her a brand new car? Would a reasonable person believe this to be true?
I don't think so.
Depends. If it was a national contest, you have a LOT of waitresses selling extra beers at $3-5 a piece, then ya, it could be reasonable.
Not her sales directly, but if it is a regional competition which it sounded like it was, there could have been hundreds or many hundreds of girls trying for the prize. Which would mean many many times the increase in sales to more than pay for a new toyota.
A fair point, gentlemen.
What do you mean is this girl justified in believe she was winning a brand new car for selling the most beer? OF COURSE SHE IS. they said you will win a TOYOTA which i guarantee every person in that contest thought was a car.
Assuming this wasn't in print, as it would be pretty cut and dry if it was, I would think it all depends on the validity of a verbal contract in the state of Florida. The competition didn't exactly cause the waitress any damages, it simply caused her to work a little harder at selling beer.
It's worth noting that she did not win, it was settled out of court. The settlement likely cost the restaurant less than the actual legal fees. I think the best way to remove the incentive to settle is to institute a "loser pays" system in all civil suits, including medical malpractice suits.
If the plaintiff here knew she would have to pay all fees if she lost, she likely wouldn't have brought such a stupid case forward. Similarly, if the case went forward and the defendant knew they wouldn't incur any fees should they win, they more likely would have fought it to the very end.
Here's another frivilous suit I saw this week that likely would never have come to be in a loser pays system:
While TKD's and Vegita's point is valid, this is ridiculous. If I shouted to my neighbor I'd pay him $1 million bucks to mow my lawn, you think it's justified that he relied on my statement and I owe him that money if he mows my lawn?
Just because someone says something does not make the person justified in believing that statement. The entire concept of justiable reliance is based on what a reasonable person would believe.
If you were completely serious in making him believe that you would in fact pay him $1 million dollars to mow your lawn then yes it is justified and he is entitled to some type of relief if you do not pay him, maybe not $1million but something.
That's true. But the trick is to convince a court of law that that you're dumb enough to believe it was true. Most people wouldn't believe it, but that doesn't mean they won't act stupid if it leads to a huge payout. People play the system everyday: that's why it's ended up a steaming shitheap.
The sad thing is that people are able take this kind of thing to court and walk away with ridiculous amounts of compensation. All that says to me is that the judicial system believe people can be that stupid...
Ok so your saying if someone told you if you were to sell the most beer for 2 weeks you will win a toyota; you wouldnt believe it was a toyota? obviously many people entered the contest believing it was a toyota.
That would depend entirely on the circumstances. I can't say if I'd believe it or not because I don't know how convincing the set-up was: if somebody told me that I could win a Toyota by selling the most beer over two weeks, then I'd be extremely dubious and ask for more details and proof - I'd only have their word for it, so they'd have to convince me that they were the real deal. If they gave me some sort of promotional literature, then there should be some kind of disclaimer to exonerate them from legal action - joke or not. If there is a disclaimer, then it's down to the victims to find it; if there isn't, then the pranksters would probably have their joke backfire on them.
I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that if people generally see an opportunity to make easy money, then they'll take it. I'm sure many people entered in good faith, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Whether they fell for the 'ruse' is of little to no consequence if they can convince a judge that they were genuinely mislead. A new Toyota is small potatoes compared to a compensation suit.
I'm not saying there were no genuine victims in this, but if the perpetrators of the prank had safeguarded themselves against legal action, then there's little anybody can do about it.If they didn't, then they'll end up paying through the ass...
P.S. If my memory serves me correctly, the promotion was advertised over the radio and not in print. I'm not sure how that changes things from a legal standpoint, but it definitely makes it easier to convince people that a 'toy Yoda' is a 'Toyota'...
That "loser pays" system sounds logical. Why isn't it in place?
Because Congress is full of lawyers.
Ever look up the definition of "congress"? Then "fucking the people" makes a little more sense.