Monday, March 3, 2014

Contest Winner Gets Toy Yoda Instead of Toyota

Here's one from the archives.  Back in 2002 a Hooters franchise in Panama City Beach, Florida ran a beer selling promotion contest for their employees.  The prize? From USA Today:


Those cutups at Hooters are always good for a few laughs!  Hooter's defense?  It was an April fool's joke!  Of course, a contract offer must be evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable person based on manifestations of intent, not from the subjective, unexpressed intent of the offeror.

What was the settlement worth?


Good for her.


Thursday, February 27, 2014

Question of Law or Fact?

Here is an interesting juxtaposition of articles.  In a trial in Michigan challenging the constitutionality of Michigan's state constitutional amendment barring same sex marriage, expert testimony has been elicited that same sex couples can be competent parents:



At about the same time, in a brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case where a US District Court judge struck down Oklahoma's same sex marriage ban, a legal argument was advanced claiming that same sex marriage is bad for children. 


So, is the effect of same sex marriage on children a question of fact or of law? 

Michigan case:


Oklahoma case:

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Topless Deep Sea Fishing Trip Contract?

There's a post title that will draw attention!  Does the pictured written memorandum memorialize a contractual obligation?

What are the issues?

1. Consideration: Was a ride on the topless deep sea fishing trip provided in exchange for the I.O.U. promise?  Or is this a promise to provide a gift to a friend in the future?

2. Condition and Performance: "When I graduate" and "when I have money" appear to be conditions precedent to performance.  What if he never graduates, yet acquires money?  What if he graduates but never has money? How much money is enough to be considered "having money"?

3. Sufficiently Certain and Definite: How much money is to be paid for the described event? Why not simply state the amount to be paid?  Or is the amount to be determined in reference to price of the trip on the future day of payment?  Who goes topless?

4. Legality: Did this trip originate in a place where topless-ness is legal? Or was the topless part of the activity to take place outside of the territorial waters of the US?

5. Capacity:  Was there any intoxication issue? Does it appear to be sufficient to affect contractual capacity?

Maybe it should be an exam question.

Source of image: Total Frat Move

e0dd0d9a27130c43585d02de605a05c4

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Chinese Company Understands Profit, But Not Product Liability

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a District Court ruling that there is personal jurisdiction in US courts over a Chinese drywall manufacturer.  If you are not familiar with the legal, environmental and health issues related to Chinese drywall use in US buildings, click here for a summary, or watch the ABC video report below

Apparently the company never responded to this lawsuit and was subjected to a default judgment.  They claim that they did not understand the implications of the lawsuit.  As the judge noted, that's what American law firms are for.

Chinese Drywall Report from ABC:

Monday, February 24, 2014

Fired For Observing Patriotic Flag Protocol

Federal Law states:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. 

4 U.S.C. section 8.

Rick Heilman, a 22 year Navy veteran, noticed the National flag flying outside his work place was tattered.  He asked his manager if he could take the flag down until a replacement was obtained.  He was twice told, "no."  After thinking about it over the weekend, he returned to work on Monday and took down the flag. Whereupon, he was fired for insubordination.

According to the news report:

Yearwood Equipment Company’s management would not speak on camera, but did reiterate that Heilman was not fired for replacing the flag. 

Right! He was NOT fired for replacing the flag. He was fired for replacing the flag after his boss told him not to, even though replacing the flag was the right thing to do.

Is it tuh-MAY-toe or toe-MAH-toe?

Of course, the employment-at-will doctrine protects the employer, allowing employee dismissal for good reason, for no reason and even for a bad reason.  Some states recognize public policy exceptions to employment at will for employees who are fired for engaging in an important public activity. North Carolina law ought to recognize that displaying proper respect for the national flag trumps the superficial bruising of a boss's ego.