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.
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
Huh? Who gives a flying flip about the trial?
I want the LAWYER to get a lesson in unilateral contracts from the law student. That's what makes this interesting. I couldn't give two hoots about the guilt of the lawyer's client.
He will make the situation worse for himself, since he will be guilty of incitement of crime. Offering to pay people to commit murder is also illegal the last time I checked. If he actually uses that excuse, he will then simply avoiding paying the one million, only to be arrested and sent to jail for conspiracy to murder. Especially if some nutcase actually did go and commit the murders, just to take him up on his dare. Which in America, seems a bit more likely than other places, in my opinion.
Any particular reason why you are so keen on finding excuses for the lawyer to weasel out of his promise?
There are a number of such public challenges made. Ansari X comes to mind. There are various individuals who invest significant effort, time and money based on the promise of the award. The person/organizations making the promise are not allowed to weasel out later and renege on their promise, causing severe damage to those who invested significant money completing the challenge, based on the promise. He didn't state it was a joke. He was not on a comedy show. He had not been asked to make a joke. Until the challenge had actually been completed, he had full rights to even publicly withdraw it. He did not do so. So he is legally obliged to pay.
The lawyer is being just a weasel, based on his obvious advantage of not requiring to hire a lawyer to defend himself. His legal expenses in defending himself will be significantly less than the other guy.
There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.
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.
You're splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that there is no question that Serrano had the motive and the opportunity, the question was more along the lines of did he have the means? The lawyer was saying that "Serrano couldn't have done because nobody could have done it," but clearly Kolodziej proved that someone could have done it, hence Serrano could have done it, all else being equal.
My blog