Toy Yoda... Get It?

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
jck524 wrote:

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.

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. [/quote]

Not in that case, because its different. If im your neighbor and live in the same neighborhood as you, I should know that if I dont have $1 million to pay someone for cutting my grass, then you probably dont have it otherwise, you wouldnt be living next to me. But in this case, the offer came from a big resturaunt chain that you could reasonably expect to be able to afford a new toyota.

…I’m glad she got her car. I’m surprised people are taking the side of the management on this one as well. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable assumption that a large chain like “Hooters” would offer something like a car to one employee in a region, as an incentive for increased work performance.

The “Loser Pays” system sounds great if you’re a large corporation or just extremely wealthy. But then you have the case of poor people, w/ legitimate grievances, who may not be in the position to even bring it to court on the off chance they may lose. Will a lawyer take a close case, as legitimate as it may be, if he knows his client will not be able to pay him if the judgment does not go their way, after he pays everbody elses court costs?

Then what constitutes legal cost. Does the loser have to pay the legal costs of a somebody who hired a team of 12 lawyers, or is there some kind of limit there?

What happens if the case is for maybe $1000, but the court costs/legal fees are 10x that. You could take it to court, make a bunch of lawyers rich, somebody bankrupt, when it could just have been settled.

I don’t think its the answer. They should bring back the concept of ‘duels’, where two parties in conflict take loaded guns, take 10 paces, then turn around and shoot. The survivor is the winner. If its worth taking it to court on principal, then it should be worth dying over, and this my friends is the definition of integrity. Actually death may not be a bit extreme of a punishment, but it should be something physically painful, non permanent, and humiliating; maybe like taking 5 shots w/ a paintball gun to ones naked backside, in public. It can of course be scaled back if the loser is elderly, or physically in capable of surviving the punishment. It should actually be decided beforehand, and agreed on by both parties and the judge before the case begins. The punishments could be televised on cable, complete w/ commercials, to bring some cash back to the government and legal system to help offset court costs. If the plaintiff or defendent is a corporation, somebody high up must ‘pay’ the loser punishment, and they cannot hire somebody to do it for them. This is the perfect solution; while people are not financially equal, a financial punishment can in no way provide justice to unequal parties, therefore the punishment must be based on their equal humanity, and susceptibility/aversion to physical pain and public humiliation.

Additionally, burning yourself w/ hot coffee is a frivolous lawsuit and then blaming someone else is a frivolous lawsuit, while this is definitely not. Even the kids who got kicked out of the baseball field was not a frivolous case.

I think that was a math-fail on her part. Does it make sense that a restaurant would give the person a $20,000 car for selling a couple grand worth of booze? lol

Most of us would probably just laugh at what happened, she’s obviously just trying to get some quick cash.

The reliance has to be reasonable AND you have to suffer a detriment. You can’t just say you relied…you have to suffer some injury because of the reliance.

We don’t have a loser pays system because the risk closes the courthouse to thousands of viable cases. You can either have shit like this clogging the courts, or you can have a genuine case (e.g. World Wide Volkswagen) not brought because the plaintiffs can’t risk the loss. It’s a policy decision.

[quote]power_bulker wrote:
I think that was a math-fail on her part. Does it make sense that a restaurant would give the person a $20,000 car for selling a couple grand worth of booze? lol

Most of us would probably just laugh at what happened, she’s obviously just trying to get some quick cash. [/quote]

Remember, not every hooters waitress was entitled a TOYOTA, so it would be more like one 20,000$ car for one of the hundreds of waitresses selling booze for a couple grand worth of booze.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
The reliance has to be reasonable AND you have to suffer a detriment. You can’t just say you relied…you have to suffer some injury because of the reliance.

We don’t have a loser pays system because the risk closes the courthouse to thousands of viable cases. You can either have shit like this clogging the courts, or you can have a genuine case (e.g. World Wide Volkswagen) not brought because the plaintiffs can’t risk the loss. It’s a policy decision. [/quote]

True that, on top of it you have punitive damages which is pretty unique.

I think both combined almost guarantee some trouble.

Yeah, fuck that waitress. I mean, who would be dumb enough to believe a manager for a national, financially-well-off establishment which has, according to the article, run similar performance incentives before?

The very thought of someone in that position, with those pre-existing conditions, even entertaining the idea of a prize of monetary value greater than that of a given period’s earnings from that individual, who is “competing” in a region-wide incentive event, is disheartening.

At the end of the day, the lady was defrauded. Whether she “deserved” the prize, and whether the competition would have warranted such a prize, is irrelevant. That April Fool’s Joke cost the company money.

And, as a personal note, fuck the fuck who set that little game up. Commission- and tipped-wage people get fucked and the rest of the country laughs their asses off. Glad to see a little piss land on some dick’s shoes.

If my soon-to-be-ex employer pulled this shit, I would be Jesse Motherfucking Jackson of the poor, disenfranchised Vash organization. And if the trainer I have working with my clients was incentivized with a similar program, he would be well within his rights to sue.

She should be required to give back the Toy Yoda, though.