Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Offers $1M For Proof His Client Could Have Done It; Oops
A Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, made the mistake of offering a million dollars on a TV show to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Having a lot of free time, South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare. Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took, completed the trip under the time allowed, and videotaped the whole process. He is now suing Mason in the federal district court — because the attorney doesn't want to pay, saying that his statement was just a joke.
Technically, all that was proven was that this Kolodziej kid was able to traverse a distance in a given period of time, not that anyone else, least of all the defendant, was able to do the same. Plus, as far as we know, Kolodzeij did not need to take time out in order to kill anyone.
I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that this guy doesn't really have a case. Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs. TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.
Good point. I would love to hear what the Florida State Bar Association has to say. He did offer to pay for research that could help the prosecution.
I don't see any positive comments here on Slashdot. We should all look on the bright side. The more time lawyers spend fighting each other, the better the odds for a peaceful and harmonious society. :)
Yes, but a legal entity, such as a lawyer, making a statement such as this one on public TV is much different than an advertisement, which can hardly (especially in this country), if ever, be taken seriously.
My law professor gave the example that if I said, "I'll give anyone who climbs the flagpole naked 1000 bucks," and they don't do it, I'm in the clear. IF they do, I'm screwed out of 1000 bucks because I made a public statement that a number of people witnessed. Even if they start up and I tell everyone, the person climbing included, that I won't follow through, they can sue me and win for the verbal contracted initiated.
IANAL and not studying to be one, just taking a couple law classes cause they're interesting.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Ah, but that isn't the reason the lawyer is trying to back out of the agreement.
One might even interpret that as an implicit agreement that it is, in fact, proof his client was guilty. Which might be eligible in court.
I'm not even American, nor have I ever been there, but I reckon that if you can't find the humour in Dick Cheney shooting his friend, mistaking him for a deer (or was it a duck), then there's something wrong.
Maybe I should post AC when I throw in a silly comment. Some of you guys are far too serious.
Ray Beckerman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Beckerman
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Unilateral contracts are distinguished by three points - 1. A specific reward or payment to a group of persons or the wider public, 2. for a particular action from the offeree which will form acceptance and performance, 3. and with the intention to create legal relations.
In this case, the intention of the parties is the most important part for the courts to consider. In Carlill v. Carbolic, the offerer specifically stated that money was deposited with a bank for the reward. This action indicated to the courts that the intention to pay was present, even if this action was only to erect an illusion of intention, it is enough to satisfy that point in law.
It is entirely predictable in this case for Mason to argue that the offer was not serious with no real intention to create legal relations. This is the same argument made by Carbolic in the landmark case. However, what Kolodziej has in front of him now is to prove that Mason's action on TV amounted is serious. This is plausible. One line of attack he can use is that Mason made his comments on Dateline, as opposed to something like Jerry Springer. It really depends on how the arguments are made, and how the judge decides given the facts and arguments.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
What he didn't think of is that with the current recession, people have a lot of time on their hands and, hey, a million is a million. And appearantly at least one person thought (rightfully) that it is not impossible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As for the Pepsi Harrier case, I thought there was a slightly happier ending, but I can't find anything online about that part. I could swear that for the sake of PR, they give him something nice. Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong.
Burma Shave once had a problem of offering someone a trip to Mars for 900 jars. They offered the winner a trip to Moers instead, which was accepted, but that was probably because the winner was media savvy enough to fight this out in the press rather than in court. If he'd have tried to get the media on his side, Pepsi would probably have been happy to offer a decent adventure holiday if they could have got some decent PR out of it.
Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Many criminal psychologists believe that O.J. was not convicted because the prosecuting team did not want to go through the process of picking jurors correctly. If they had been systematic about it instead of haphazard, the case would have been different.
You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?
If you're putting a smiley emoticon after the unstated parenthetical of your answer, and also admitting to us that you probably know more than the average person on the street, which was explicitly the question they asked, I'm not sure exactly what other answer is available to you. They didn't say anything about the "Cambridge jury pool," they used a completely standard term with a commonsense meaning, which could only be intentionally misconstrued.
I am not a sociologist nor statistician
I am not a lawyer, but I know when someone who has had law enforcement training tells me that he doesn't have a better understanding of the law than a common person, he's pulling my leg. The question was completely appropriate; they were satisfied you knew more than the average person because of your experience, res ipso loquitor. They just wanted to see if you would answer a possibly-disqualifying question ingenuously. Which you didn't. You were swinging your arms with your eyes closed, and if you smacked the truth, you were satisfied it was the truth's fault.
And cops wonder why they sometimes encounter distrust from civilians...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.