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.

Comments

Technically..

[bsDaemon]

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.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

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.

Re:Technically..

[bmo]

"I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything,"

The lawyer wasn't a big New York Country Lawyer either.

There's a /reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.

--
BMO

Re:Technically..

[fractoid]

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.

Internets killed the video star, I see. :P

Re:Technically..

[fredmosby]

According to this article the actual statement made by the lawyer was:

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

He wasn't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty. He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes. Which this law student apparently did.

Re:Technically..

[Andy_R]

That wording doesn't say there is only 1 prize. If the court decides to award this guy his million, it could concievably award other millions to subsequent proofs. It's a long shot, but if I lived locally I'd consider gambling an hour of time, gas and videotape against the chance of a million dollar payout.

Re:Technically..

[tyrione]

"I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything,"

The lawyer wasn't a big New York Country Lawyer either.

There's a /reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.

-- BMO

What is this big New York Country Lawyer thing we keep talking about? City, yes. Country, no.

Re:Technically..

[commodoresloat]

So did the Kolodzeij kid actually kill four people? If he didn't, he hasn't proven anything. He needs to go back and do it again if he wants the million bucks.

Re:Technically..

[Canazza]

This is the guy

you must be new here :)

Re:Technically..

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And that is a bad thing? At least it will teach people not to make void promises in public. On TV, for Buddha's sake.

Re:Technically..

[thej1nx]

Unfortunately, the lawyer cannot use that excuse either.

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.

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

Country doesn't have to mean a nation, it can just mean countryside, of which the state of New York surely has some..

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.

Is it because they both start in L, end in R and contain an I or a Y, both of which have similar phonetic properties?

This is fun! I'll try some:

There's a reason why PDF file sounds like pedophile.

There's a reason why cheese sounds like she's.

There's a reason why icicles sounds like bicycles.

Obviously anyone who uses Adobe products should be sent to jail, women are a basic ingredient for pizza, and you should always wear thermal underwear when you go cycling.

Re:Technically..

[Joce640k]

Is there a reason why 'orange' doesn't sound like anything else?

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

The obviously reason is that if it did, you would never be able to stop those pesky singing pirates

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

obvious* (obviously..)

Re:Technically..

[Anonymous Coward]

Country doesn't have to mean a nation, it can just mean countryside, of which the state of New York surely has some..

That would be news to many dwellers of The City....

Re:Technically..

[crrkrieger]

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.

Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?

Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year. In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety. It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered. Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.

The traditional example is a reward. Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer. Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward. In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis. Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.

Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.

Re:Technically..

[process]

You're missing the point.

The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

Not that someone else could do it. The GP points out that this is what Dustin Kolodziej has accomplished and that his claim for the cash will easily be disputed in a court of law. This could be the loophole the lawyer needs to get out of this easily.

I'm not, and I don't know if GP is, saying this is right - but hey, there's law for you

Re:Technically..

[Stuart Gibson]

What of US Naval Commander Henry Honychurch Gorringe, the captain of the USS Gettysburg who discovered Gorringe Ridge in 1875? (lifted straight from Wikipedia).
Also Blorenge Hill in Wales.

Do proper nouns count if we're not playing Scrabble?

Re:Technically..

[Taddy Tadbag]

IMNBAFBNYCL 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.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Technically..

[iapetus]

Because people always forget about lozenge?

Re:Technically..

[L4t3r4lu5]

Breast sounds like rest, indicating that they are indeed man-pillows.

Re:Technically..

[Per Wigren]

Is there a reason why 'orange' doesn't sound like anything else?

Door hinge?

Re:Technically..

[SuperDre]

Well, the student didn't kill 4 people along the way, so he actually didn't fullfil what was asked.... If he would have killed 4 people then and only then would he get the million dollars... but ofcourse if he did that he wouldn't enjoy the million dollars as he was going straight to Jail.. hehe..

Re:Technically..

[zsau]

Any particular reason why you are so keen on finding excuses for the lawyer to weasel out of his promise?

Because if a lawyer can weasel out of his promise, no-one will ever trust lawyers again! (... don't I wish)

Re:Technically..

[OzRoy]

That seems to be what the guy has done. The lawyer asked for proof that his client was ABLE to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Not whether he actually did do it.

Dustin Kolodziej was able to make the journey in that time, and therefore provided evidence that Nelson Ivan Serrano also was able to make that journey.

Re:Technically..

[edgr]

Obviously, ... women are a basic ingredient for pizza

Evidence here: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1693641

Re:Technically..

[Quothz]

Is there a reason why 'orange' doesn't sound like anything else?

Door hinge? Whore binge? For mange?

Re:Technically..

[Sj0]

You say nothing rhymes with orange
But I don't even have to forage.
I'll put down my porridge,
kick the door off the door hinge,
and say "There are things that rhyme with orange"

Re:Technically..

[chadplusplus]

If the defense's primary theory was that it is simply impossible to drive that distance in that time, then the law grad becomes one hell of a rebuttal witness. Until that argument is made it court though, the law grad's journey is irrelevant (to the murder case).

Re:Technically..

[morgan_greywolf]

The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

Not that someone else could do 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.

Re:Technically..

[locofungus]

Don't think they need to. I think the defence went along the lines of:

"Crime was committed at time X in state A. He was seen at this hotel in state B at time Y."

Because it's impossible to get from the airport in state B to the hotel in 28 minutes, he cannot have caught a plane that left state A after time X and therefore could not have committed the crime.

I imagine alibis are established like this all the time. It's presumably not uncommon to be able to prove where you where at times around that which a crime was committed but be unable to prove your precise position at the instant of the crime. This is perhaps slightly unusual in that the precise time of the crime isn't important to the alibi.

Tim.

Re:Technically..

[hesaigo999ca]

I so agree with you, I tend to think especially that it was a public message to people about offering a sort of reward for doing something, even if it was done, but not the way the person intended, the result is the same, and he should be held accountable, and pay the sum, and lose the trial...for all intents and purposes.

This should also set a precedent! Thinking he was going to show no one could pull it off, someone did, and this proves his client guilty indirectly!

Re:Technically..

[morgan_greywolf]

Not if you're from NYC. Most NYC residents see "upstate" New York as practically being Connecticut.

Re:Technically..

[Taulin]

I always thought it sounded like 'apple'.

Re:Technically..

[Theaetetus]

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.

Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?

Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year. In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety. It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered. Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.

The traditional example is a reward. Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer. Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward. In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis. Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.

Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.

Was this sufficiently specific to constitute an offer? For example, there was no time limit: is Mason on the hook for anyone able to do it, anytime, anywhere? There appears to be none of the language which has shown up in other, valid unilateral contracts - "first come, first served", "while supplies last", "offer good to the first acceptance", etc.

My guess is that he'd argue this is more like the Pepsi-Co Harrier Jet: no reasonable person would understand that this was an actual offer, instead it was posturing for his client.

Re:Technically..

[Theaetetus]

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.

Not necessarily. This is distinct from challenges such as the XPrize, because those events have very specific and detailed requirements... including that the "prize" goes to the first successful entrant, that the event has a specified and detailed goal, that there's a time limit of a few years to successfully complete, etc. This had none of those. This is closer to the Pepsi-co Harrier Jet giveaway (remember the television commercial, 15 million pepsi points for a Harrier, or something?). No reasonable person could believe based on his short statement that he was making an actual offer to engage in a unilateral contract, particularly one that would be open to everyone, forever. Thus, there's no need for him to rescind the offer, because it was not an offer.

And before you accuse me of being "keen on finding excuses for the lawyer" like you did to the grandparent, I have no stake in this. I just like contract law.

Re:Technically..

[geekoid]

Yeah, but did he kill 4 people? who knows how long that took~

Re:Technically..

[geekoid]

door hinge.

Re:Technically..

[plague3106]

The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

Fair enough... but what is different from the guy that DID travel in that amount of time and Mr. Serrano, which would prevent HIM from doing it? Is he crippled or something? Composilvely obeys speed limits? Otherwise, its reasonable to assume that if one average human can do it, another average human could as well. I also assume the lawyer that proved he could included the time taken to kill the victims... thats such a basic omission when you're working on a million dollar prize.

Re:Technically..

[Rocketship Underpant]

It sounds like "door hinge" in a Cockney accent.

Re:Technically..

[DinDaddy]

women are a basic ingredient for pizza

Well, yeah! Those things aren't gonna make themselves you know!

(checks over should, nope, wife not looking)

Re:Technically..

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

What has Buddha's rice wine to do with anything? Oh, I see...

Re:Technically..

[Austerity Empowers]

We lived "upstate" (Poughkeepsie) briefly and my parents referred to it as Canada. Yeah yeah I know.

Re:Technically..

[Zakabog]

Not if you're from NYC. Most NYC residents see "upstate" New York as practically being Connecticut.

And most upstate residents see "NYC" as being "New York." Tell someone in Albany you're driving down to "New York" for the weekend and they fully understand you mean New York City. Plus I've noticed people outside of the state don't even realize there's anything outside of the city. They assume New York is just one giant city not realizing how large the state actually is compared to the size of NYC.

Re:Technically..

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

TFA had very little concrete information, the actual murder case dates back to '97. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Serrano. End he was eventually convicted in '06.

The Dateline article dates from Dec. 21, 2006.

Cheney Mason: You'd be stretching your imagination to believe you could drive that distance, in the traffic, and get there, and be able to commit this crime. I do not think so.

And the last part of the timeline, the defense argued was even more implausible.

In less than half an hour, Serrano would have had to get off a wide body jet, exit Atlanta airport - one of the busiest in the world - and arrive back at his hotel five miles away. All in time to be photographed looking up at that surveillance camera.

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.

I sincerely apologise for RTFAAB (RTFA and Beyond). Sorry, won't happen again.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

No, you're missing MY point.

I don't care about the guilt or innocence of the lawyer's client. I don't care whether or not he did or did not make the journey.

I DO care as an amused observer, that this lawyer made offered a million dollars to anyone who could PROVE that his client WAS ABLE to travel across two states during that period of time.

The law student in question didn't PROVE the client's guilt, but he did PROVE (in the form of videotape) that the client WAS ABLE (by making the trip).

The law student was able to meet the lawyer's terms. This is not in question and is plain as day to see. Even the lawyer himself DOES NOT DISAGREE.

Now, how much do I personally care about this other than the amusement at the situation? Not even enough to learn their names. That's how much I care.

Re:Technically..

[Bender0x7D1]

Door hinge.

Re:Technically..

[mrtommyb]

If the dumbass lawyer wins the case I'll give everyone on slashdot a million dollars

Re:Technically..

[NitroWolf]

> There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.

Lawyer and Liar sound nothing alike. That is, unless you are unable to pronounce the words properly. I've found that the people who pronounce Liar and Lawyer similarly are usually the uneducated or poorly educated type of people. People with higher education or that come from a less poor background typically pronounce the words correctly - which sound nothing alike, aside from sharing two letters.

LIE - ER
LAW - YER

There is nothing similar about them. Only uneducated folk make them sound similar. I guess we know where you come into the picture. :)

Re:Technically..

[True Vox]

Oblig. Snopes Post: http://www.snopes.com/business/deals/pepsijet.asp

Re:Technically..

[denttford]

As a Manhattan resident (and native), I assure you, Westchester is upstate. Actually, maybe Riverdale, too. Meh, I'll play it safe, and just say upstate is north of 96th St.

Re:Technically..

[StikyPad]

I couldn't give two hoots about the guilt of the lawyer's client.

And therein lies the problem with our justice system.. nobody really gives a fuck what happens to people they don't know.

Re:Technically..

[infinite9]

I once asked my daughter to bring me a Fly Swatter. She brought me some Ice Water. (this is true, it's a long-standing family inside joke)

Re:Technically..

[infinite9]

This reminds me of the origins of the word "irregardless". Of course, many English Nazis will tell you that this is not a word. But I disagree! During the War of 1812, many guard ships that were stationed in the Great Lakes were diverted to the Gulf of Mexico to fight the British. This alarmed the residents of New York who, fearing a British attack, questioned the intelligence of leaving the Erie Guardless.

P.S. The spell checker thinks irregardless is not misspelled. :-/

Re:Technically..

[sjames]

By proving that someone with ordinary abilities could do it, he made a pretty big dent in the argument that the defendant with apparently ordinary abilities couldn't possibly have managed it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is found that his 'offer' was merely a turn of phrase rather than a unilateral contract, but either way, I'll bet the defendant will sincerely wish the documented proof of possibility didn't exist!

While under no obligation to do so, the prosecution should see about at least paying the guy's expenses. He made a pretty decent contribution to their case.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

Okay. Maybe I should judge this man's guilt or innocence based on what I don't know about the facts that were presented in a trial I didn't attend.

Re:Technically..

[sloth jr]

Yes on apathy. That's how we as humans can survive - by NOT attaching ourselves to tragedies that don't have direct impact. Got enough to worry about.

Re:Technically..

[gangien]

And you must be new to the English language.

I kid, I kid.

Re:Technically..

[microbee]

He said "I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it."

So no matter how many of them there were, he was only going to pay one million.

You see, lawyers are really smart.

Re:Technically..

[StikyPad]

I was pointing out that apathy is the Achilles heel of a democratic society, not suggesting that you personally offer up a verdict. When people only care about issues that affect them directly (such as the contract law you brought up), they're missing the bigger picture. It's fine to be *more* concerned with issues that are more clear and present threats, but to ignore others altogether is foolish. Although I personally believe that being more concerned with whether a lawyer should have to pay up than with the fate, possibly including the actual life, of another human being, is neither productive nor desirable as a society. But since no one person is a society, we're all free to hide behind our individualism.

Re:Technically..

[Tetsujin]

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,

...I am a simple cave-man... I was out hunting elk when I was caught up in an avalance of snow and ice that left me frozen for thousands of years... Since being unfrozen I have found your modern world bewildering and confounding. There is much I do not know. But one thing I do know is that my defendant could not have driven across two states and committed the murders in question within the time alleged by the prosecution...

Re:Technically..

[dbcad7]

Whore mange ?

Re:Technically..

[seekret]

I'm wondering what the qualifications for being a dumb ass are, I'm willing to take you to court when one of them wins to find out. This qualifies as a unilateral contract since everyone knows the Internet is serious business so I hope you have lots of money on hand since I'm pretty good at twisting the English language to my benefits :p

Re:Technically..

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

No, no, NO!
Everyone knows you can compare apples and oranges!

Re:Technically..

[Chris Burke]

There's a reason why cheese sounds like she's.

Obviously... women are a basic ingredient for pizza

No, no, you got that wrong.

This is why your woman thinks all your cheese belongs to her.

Re:Technically..

[mysidia]

The offer didn't say anything about the defense's case, the exact case the defense attempted to make is not pertinent to this matter.

Per the article, the original offer said: " Cheney Mason went on Dateline and offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was actually able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged."

In other words, it's not enough just to prove they could travel so far in that time, they need to prove his client was not only able to travel in that time, but also that he was able to perform 4 killings in that time.

They themselves were able to travel there in 28 min, so they also need to prove:

• The attorney's client can travel as fast as they can, and no special circumstances exist that might make the defendant unable to do so (possibly not hard)
• The attorney's client had all knowledge, physical ability, and means available to perform 4 killings after the travel, and still not exceed the given time

My point is, if they travelled there in exactly 28 minutes, they fail. I would expect that killing 4 people would take some amount of time.

Even if it was 15 seconds, the attorney could argue that they didn't prove his client could have travelled across 2 states and committed the crime within the 28 minutes.

Re:Technically..

[princessproton]

this proves his client guilty indirectly!

No. This puts a serious dent in the defense's position that it was impossible for his client to have committed the crime under the requisite circumstances. The fact that it is indeed possible still does not constitute proof that his client is actually guilty.

Re:Technically..

[nevergleam]

For the sake of argument, suppose that the method employed by the student to cover the distance in a short amount of time was itself illegal (surpassing posted speed limits). The student has himself on tape breaking said speed limits. Are contracts that implicitly prescribe illegal actions such as the contract in question enforceable? Even if not implicitly prescribed, could the student's fulfillment of the contract be voided since he broke the speed limit to do so?

What this may look like is me trying to get free legal advice. It is actually my curiosity lazily attempting to sate itself.

Re:Technically..

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

>>Is there a reason why 'orange' doesn't sound like anything else?

It sounds an awful lot like 'smorange' and 'borange'.

Re:Technically..

[Tubal-Cain]

I can't believe nobody has yet pointed out that 'door hinge' sounds a lot like 'orange'

Re:Technically..

[Tubal-Cain]

Only uneducated folk make them sound similar.

Oh wow.

Re:Technically..

[Tubal-Cain]

I know it seems kind of obvious, but could you clarify which one that is?

Re:Technically..

[torkus]

If he'd said it almost any other way, in almost any other setting, i'd agree with you.

But he is a lawyer. In a court room. On public record. Before witnesses.

An underlying, critical part of his job is speaking accurately and dealing with minute details of descriptions. Or put another way, if the lawyer said 'he couldn't have killed these guys because i killed them myself' would that be legally admissible as evidence?

Re:Technically..

[CarpetShark]

You're splitting hairs.

I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can prove he's splitting hairs ;)

p.s.: Photographic evidence would be good.

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

Nah, Australians emphasise their vowels so you'd notice the difference. I think with Irish accents it would be harder to distinguish.

I don't know who Kath and Kim are, but we had an Australian guy working here for a couple of years, and there's plenty of Australian stuff been on TV in the UK over the last couple of decades.

Re:Technically..

[Theaetetus]

If he'd said it almost any other way, in almost any other setting, i'd agree with you.

But he is a lawyer. In a court room. On public record. Before witnesses.

An underlying, critical part of his job is speaking accurately and dealing with minute details of descriptions. Or put another way, if the lawyer said 'he couldn't have killed these guys because i killed them myself' would that be legally admissible as evidence?

That might not be the best analogy - he's not inculpating himself. Perhaps a better one would be if the prosecutor said, "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to tell you a story of how that man horribly murdered young Mrs. Wossname." Is that binding evidence? What if the defense attorney says, "my client was wrongfully accused." Is he instantly acquitted without further trial?
No - these statements are both posturing, and are not "evidence". Similarly, the defense attorney's statement that the drive was impossible is not evidence of it being impossible - in fact, it wasn't, as proven by the guy with the video tape.

So, if no reasonable person would take the posturing statements of the prosecutor or defense attorney as fact, then why should we take them to be objective evidence of an intention to enter into a unilateral contract?

sanctions?

[Lehk228]

He should be disbarred for offering a reward to anyone who helps strengthen the case AGAINST his client.

Re:sanctions?

[gnick]

OK, on the surface that seems like the right sentiment.

But the lawyer's job isn't to convince the public that his client is right, it's to persuade the jury to release him. If making some irresponsible public statement to garner press, no matter how immoral, inappropriate, unethical, or just seemingly stupid it might be, if it helps his client he's doing his job. Even if he's pulling a publicity stunt that no juror should know about (but may affect the outcome) he's doing his job.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but what a world...

Re:sanctions?

[ebonum]

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. :)

Re:sanctions?

[jonbryce]

He thought he was going to be able to say that he offered $1m for evidence and nobody took him up on it because it was impossible.

Re:sanctions?

[dynamo]

BUT - It didn't help his client. If I were his client in this situation, I'd probably be pretty pissed off. Especially about having my lawyer "joking" about the case and the chances that I might have killed four people.

I'm not sure he should be disbarred for the dare, that might theoretically have been helpful to the client, if no one responded. Calling it a joke though, um, is not funny.

Re:sanctions?

[JWSmythe]

    Welcome to the modern legal system, and widespread tainting of the jury pool. If your case is big enough, everyone will know about it and have an opinion before it ever makes it to jury selection.

    Look at the O.J. Simpson cases. He didn't have a prayer for an impartial jury. I'm not arguing the merits of the case, or innocence or guilt. It was splattered all over the news, so by the time it made it to court, it was virtually impossible to find someone who hadn't heard of the case at least to some degree.

    Potential jurors aren't eliminated only on if they have heard information on the case. I was rejected as a juror once because I had gone through law enforcement school, even though I had not worked in the field yet. The defense tossed me immediately, even though he asked "Do you think your training has given you a better understanding of the law than a common person?" I answered "no sir.", because I don't know what the common person knows. :) I probably understand the law better than the average schmuck on the street, but I know much less than professionals in that field. I only said "no", since they were just looking for yes/no answers. Now I'm an information whore, so if I were asked, I'd probably already know something about the case in question, which one or both sides would want me rejected.

Re:sanctions?

[Aeternitas827]

But the lawyer's job isn't to convince the public that his client is right, it's to persuade the jury to release him.

But this did the exact opposite, as it turns out; if the Defense is based on the impossibility of the timing provided by the Prosecution, the Defense Attorney has essentially provided a reward to give the Prosecution evidence against his own defensive theory, therefore harming his client and possibly condemning him to a jail sentence (guilt or innocence aside, depending on the basis of the Defense). So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not--in the end, if pressed, I'm sure in trial or appeal or a new trial altogether, the party who proved the possibility could end up deposed or on the stand for the prosecution. It's not necessarily a disbarment issue, but censure or other action, definitely is warranted, this particular instance in NO WAY helped his client.

Re:sanctions?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[adamchou]

At the time, that might have been valid. After reading through the transcript of the show, Serrano already received a sentence so I don't think it really matters anymore.

Re:sanctions?

[jamesh]

Look at the O.J. Simpson cases. He didn't have a prayer for an impartial jury.

Knock Knock
Who's there?
OJ
OJ Who?
Okay, you're on the jury.

Re:sanctions?

[plover]

I can tell you that, believe it or not, attorneys have far higher ethical standards than what you propose.

That's right. Don't let the actions of a mere 95% of the practitioners of the field sway you into believing that all lawyers believe "the end justifies the means."

Re:sanctions?

[Rogerborg]

The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH

Outside of third world commie countries like France, most civilised nations operate an adversarial rather than inquisitorial legal system. Truth has nothing to do with it. What's the packet loss like to your planet?

Re:sanctions?

[timeOday]

He did offer to pay for research that could help the prosecution.

Not if the "offer" was purely a rhetorical device, as the weasel claims.

Re:sanctions?

[kilfarsnar]

"The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. It's a very strange notion that proving some truth is not helping the client. Justice is supposed to be based on the notion that ethical behaviour benefits all, and that if a person steps off that path, they should be helped or even forced back onto it, since they will become harmful to others AS WELL AS themselves."

I disagree. The idea of legal representation is to have your client's side represented. A lawyer does not establish the truth; he defends his client.

I know it's nice to think that our justice system tries to get to the truth. But really there are two sides, each trying to make a better argument than the other to convince the jury of their case. The only thing established is guilt, or not-guilt.

Re:sanctions?

[oliderid]

inquisitorial legal system used by France is based on a "juge d'instruction" aka investigating magistrate. Basically this magistrate investigates "a charge et a decharge" which means that she/he is more like a supercop with fullpower and an obligation of objectivity. The only thing he can't investigate are cases involving senators and/or ministers (without the parliament approval) or the state secrete affairs. Once his/her works has been done, another judge leads the trial. "La verite juridique" (the legal truth) is what matters.

Re:sanctions?

[westlake]

if the Defense is based on the impossibility of the timing provided by the Prosecution, the Defense Attorney has provided a reward to give the Prosecution evidence against his own theory, therefore harming his client

The client always lies about something that can hurt him.
If this is his alibi, you don't begin by publicly proclaiming that the timing is impossible.

You test it first.

Re:sanctions?

[fwice]

Now, we're getting into something that has given me a nice philosophical question for a long while:

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel for the accused. In that case, it can be assumed that some defendants who plead 'not guilty' are in fact, guilty, and their guilt is unquestionable.

The issue that isn't so black or white is the ethics of the lawyer:

is it more ethical to defend 'to the death' (and possibly win the freedom) of a definitively guilty person, or is it more ethical to throw in the towel and 'defend' the definitively guilty person, earning them a stay in a penitentiary for the crime they committed (and the lawyer knows was committed)?

Re:sanctions?

[lymond01]

I know you're being funny but it's true. Defense attorney's one job is to get their client off using the techniques available in a courtroom and that isn't necessarily just the letter of the law. Prosecution has a different goal, same means. Many times defenders aren't there to show jurors the law, but to convince them to let their client go free. Plead to their emotions, defame the prosecution...whatever it takes within or at least near the boundary of the law to win.

If they aren't going all out, they aren't doing their job right.

Re:sanctions?

[etrusco]

Wrong. This is just a disingenuous twist used by immoral people. The job of the lawyer if to defend the client so that they get a just trial.
Just like that "enterprises are meant to profit" thing. No. They're meant to generate capital, and in the way, jobs.

Re:sanctions?

[iluvcapra]

I answered "no sir.", because I don't know what the common person knows. :)

Ah, so not only do you have more knowledge of law enforcement than the average person, but you also give bad-faith answers to questions from officers of the court. You're a great juror!

Re:sanctions?

[JWSmythe]

    I have a time portal from 1826 to your current 2009, that can sustain a wireless ethernet connection. What do you think?

    BTW, do you know hard it is to hide a DC power room and solar panels in 1826? If only you had let Tesla's work be taken full advantage of, I could use his wireless energy system through the time portal, and no one would notice. Well, except for your damned pollution coming through. Really, that stuff stinks. Can't all of you smell it?

Re:sanctions?

[JWSmythe]

    He wasn't convicted in criminal court because it wasn't a trial, it was a circus. He was a celebrity, with high powered lawyers spewing enough crap to make most people confused to their own names by the end of it.

    But hey, that's our legal system. Which ever side can dazzle the jury best wins. The jury isn't an arbitrary pool of people, it's an arbitrary pool that's then sanitized of people who may see through the BS. It's not about right or wrong. It's what can the lawyers convince them of.

   

Re:sanctions?

[hanabal]

I thought it is illegal to defend a client that you 'know for sure' is guilty. That's why your lawyer sometimes tells you to be careful what you tell them

Re:sanctions?

[True Vox]

You're more likely to be right then me, but if they're meant to generate capital, and thus, jobs... why do we have boards of share holders bitching when they generate too little in the way of capital? And why DON'T you see these same people reading the CEO's the riot act when they don't pour the money back into creating more jobs?

Re:sanctions?

[JWSmythe]

    I am not a sociologist nor statistician, and I was not advised that the question would arise. If I had been given the opportunity, I would have taken the time to find how I statistically fit into the knowledge base of the general population.

    Being that I know less than seasoned law enforcement and lawyers, but more than some others, I would have to assume that my knowledge falls into the norm for the population at large.

    It was not a bad faith answer. It was an improper question. Are YOU smarter than the common person? Yes, huh? How was "common person" defined? Average for the room? For the community? For the state? For the country?

    What if the case was being heard in Cambridge, MA, and the jury pool of locals coincidentally were all higher level law students? The case itself was between two law professors. Not only would I not consider myself qualified to sit on the jury, but I would be probably the dumbest person in the room. :)

    It's good to know that you are aware of the knowledge level of the common person though, and you can evaluate yourself in comparison to any other group of people at will.

    You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?

Re:sanctions?

[dogmatixpsych]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[alx5000]

Wh... what?

Re:sanctions?

[slapout]

Maybe that was his plan all along. He goes on TV and says something stupid that hurts his client. His client then gets the judge to delay the case because he needs time to get another lawyer.

Re:sanctions?

[Chris Burke]

So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not

Okay but what about intentionally or not? Does that matter? Does making an argument which happens to have holes in it such that when the prosecution pokes their fingers in them it makes the case fall apart mean the lawyer tanked their own case? I'm willing to bet (a million dollars!) that he really thought this was a solid argument, and that nobody could have made the trip in that time (and based on the description of events and a couple odd trips through Atlanta International I would have probably been nodding my head in agreement had I been in the courtroom).

I mean is it really an ethical violation to be wrong about the strength of your argument?

Re:sanctions?

[iluvcapra]

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...

Re:sanctions?

[Lunzo]

it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not

You would have made a good point, except he already lost the case and his client is already in jail.

Re:sanctions?

[JoeBuck]

Although I think OJ was guilty, I also think that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I was amazed at how incompetent they were, which is why OJ's lawyers managed to run rings around them. They made several massive errors: the gloves that wouldn't fit, and there was evidence that blood evidence was mishandled, and the cop who collected the blood evidence perjured himself about his use of racial slurs. The prosecution could have countered all this and really proved its case, but they preferred to try the case in the press instead, yelling "mountains of evidence" a lot. Whenever you hear a prosecutor say "mountains of evidence", watch out. What they are saying is that they have lots of circumstantial evidence, but they either aren't able, or can't be bothered, to distill it down into a clean proof that the charged party actually did the deed.

Re:sanctions?

[CarpetShark]

A lawyer does not establish the truth; he defends his client.

I never said that he did. I said the idea was to establish the truth. I don't for one second think that our legal system actually works.

The only thing established is guilt, or not-guilt.

And they cannot be honestly arrived at without knowing the truth.

Pepsi points

[canadian_right]

Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest. Pepsi won that case.

Re:Pepsi points

[eosp]

What the reasonable person would think here depends on the income that this attorney pulls in.

Re:Pepsi points

[MaskedSlacker]

Yeah, but this might fail outright on count three from that case--if the amount is large enough a verbal agreement doesn't cut it (IANAL, I don't know the relevant dividing amount)

Re:Pepsi points

[aitikin]

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.

Re:Pepsi points

[swillden]

He was a bigshot lawyer on tee vee. 'Course he's got millions.

Re:Pepsi points

[scrib]

Haven't you heard? "Billion" is the new "million."
I don't think million dollar offers fall into the obvious "joke" category any more. James Randi Educational Foundation is offering $1million just for proving some slight paranormal claims. I knew a guy who won a million dollars for hitting a hole in one. Promotions like that are insured and JREF has a financial statement to back it up.

If you can imagine the lawyer telling the jury "my client and I offered a million dollars to anyone who could do what the prosecution claims my client did, but no one claimed it because it is impossible" then you have to think it reasonable that he meant it. If he was joking or speaking in hyperbole, he should have known to say "billion."

The Harrier Jet cost an order of magnitude or two more than the purchase price of the Pepsi Points and was in a commercial aimed at children. It was a fun case to discuss in my only semester of law school before I wised up and went back to computers. As much as it breaks my heart, I do think the attorney will win the case on the grounds that it wasn't a real offer.

Re:Pepsi points

[JWSmythe]

    That really was the justification of not needing to give away a Harrier. It was an unreasonable belief that Pepsi would give away a military aircraft, which made it a parody.

    On the other hand, a lawyer requesting an expert witness prove something, and making an open offer is not. If a lawyer said "I'll give a million dollars to the first person who can do X" is requesting that someone do that. The actual quote was "I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it,". It is reasonable to believe cash can be given by a lawyer. A million dollars is a lot, but still not an unreasonable sum. A military aircraft on the other hand doesn't usually fall into civilian hands, which made it an unreasonable assertion. :) Likewise, if someone says they'd part with a body part for something, more than likely that is an unreasonable assertion. I've heard people say it, but I have yet to see someone pay with a body part. :)

    What the lawyer did is right along the lines of an open monetary reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of particular criminals, or finding someone's lost [something], regardless if the something could be a dog, cat, watch, or child. I don't know too many people who would, on the safe return of a kidnapping victim, would really push for the reward money, but it's likely some people would. Personally, if I had information on a crime, and a reward was being given, I'd tell them to keep their money. A "thank you" and even a handshake would be nice, but that's all the reward I'd ever expect.

    That's what the article was reinforcing anyways. It was a reasonable assertion. Now he just knows he's really on the losing side of the battle.

    In doing more reading on it, the 10 hour window is really possible. As it seems to have played out, he flew from ATL to ORL, took the rental car, killed the victims, drove to TPA, and flew from TPA to ATL, so he could be in his hotel. Two false names, and the car was rented by a 3rd party to cover things up. He obviously wouldn't have driven the entire route (ATL to ORL and back), as that would be over 16 hours on the road, or only possibly 12 if he drove fast. That would run him into other problems, as a single traffic ticket would be his doom. He could have picked other airports, or even chartered a plane, but those would have been more suspicious. The three airports used are well traveled, so a couple odd tickets wouldn't really be noticed. Well, he hoped. The lawyer was just being stupid, and trying to reaffirm in the public's mind that his client couldn't possibly be guilty. He just really screwed up by doing it in such a way.

Re:Pepsi points

[JWSmythe]

    Unfortunately, you're probably right. He'll get off without paying, even though it incurred expenses by the person who did prove it for him. Maybe the final judgment will be for expenses plus damages for the implied but not reasonable offer.

    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.

Re:Pepsi points

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, I would climb the pole and then ask for the naked 1000 bucks.

Re:Pepsi points

[Opportunist]

The main point in that case was that it cannot be assumed by any reasonable person that they would give away a jet worth multiple million dollars for an amount of redeemable points that would not generate them even a percent of that cost. You might assume it if it is some lottery or game system where you additionally either have to have a lot of luck or have to accomplish some other feat... And all that provided that civilians may own military hardware where you live.

It's not so unreasonable to assume a lawyer would offer a prize to someone who can prove something (or, in this case, would incite people to try and fail to prove the opposite). The ethics is questionable (he might have been required to go a wee bit over the speed limit or drive recklessly, thus endangering people while trying to prove the point), but I wouldn't rule it out to be believable.

Re:Pepsi points

[rapiddescent]

All first year law students learn about contract law and learn the intrinsics of offer and acceptance. The key point is that a contract can be accepted, even if the contract(or) doesn't know that the contractee has accepted. See Mrs Carlill vs the Carbolic Smokeball company.

Re:Pepsi points

[Joce640k]

All the kid needs is a really good lawyer (who'll probably take a sizable chunk of the money - and the government will take most of what's left over).

Re:Pepsi points

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Pepsi points

[ICLKennyG]

Statute of frauds my good man. Over $5,000 - no contract without writing.

Lawyer's in the clear for the $1m - still may be disbarred though.

Re:Pepsi points

[Sj0]

I wish the tactic of making false 'contests' by lawyers was ended.

I recall when Jack Thompson offered $100,000 to the first person to make a FPS where game company executives were the enemies, then he refused to follow through when someone actually did it.

They say "Put your money where your mouth is". It seems wrong that they can put monopoly money where their mouth is and act as if they're not full of shit.

Re:Pepsi points

[morgan_greywolf]

IANAL, but generally the Statute of Frauds only cares about dollar amount if it is for a sale of goods. This looks like a service contract.

Ding! The Statute of Frauds only applies to:

* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
        * Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
        * Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
        * Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
        * Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
        * Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.

This was clearly a unilateral service contract. No one's getting married, the contract clearly could be performed in under a year, there was no land involved, had nothing to do with the executor of a will, and was not for the sale of goods, and nobody is acting as a guarantor here.

what was ruled in the Pepsi Points Case was that the TV commercial didn't constitute an offer and that no reasonable person could believe that a company like Pepsi was prepared to convey a $23 million jet for under a million bucks.

OTOH, it might be perfectly reasonable that the defense attorney could convey a million dollar prize to someone who could prove his client's innocence -- but his guilt? I don't know. Doesn't seem like that's in his client's best interests or his own best interests, given the duty to provide a zealous defense.

If you ask me, it sounded like a bet. And, FWIU, betting is illegal in the State of the Florida. Contracts are null and void if executing them involves breaking the law.

Re:Pepsi points

[BobMcD]

Wikipedia explicitly states the 'sale of goods', which should not apply here.

Re:Pepsi points

[Opportunist]

*grumble*

As usual, it's all right and fine when Da Man does it but you mustn't. Preaching water and guzzling booze, how typical!

Re:Pepsi points

[proslack]

Videotape.

Re:Pepsi points

[Theaetetus]

All first year law students learn about contract law and learn the intrinsics of offer and acceptance. The key point is that a contract can be accepted, even if the contract(or) doesn't know that the contractee has accepted. See Mrs Carlill vs the Carbolic Smokeball company.

The distinction here is that Mrs. Carlill was fortunate enough to have a very specific offer in hand:

âoe£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.

That's quite a bit different from:

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it. Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted? Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

Furthermore, Mrs. Carlill also had the additional statement in the offer:

£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.

By putting money in escrow, they couldn't really claim that no reasonable person expected them to follow through. Mason, however? No.

I think the closer case to this would be Lucy v. Zimmer: A had been asking B to sell him his house for years, B refused. One day, A and B are drinking together, A asks again to buy the house. B says (thinking A doesn't have the money), "fine, to shut you up, I'll sell you the house for cash, right now." They sign a contract on a bar napkin, and B even makes his wife sign as a witness. So, the next day A shows up with his cash, and B claims he was just joking. Contract was valid against B, because the subjective intent of the parties is irrelevant - the question is whether a reasonable person viewing the objective evidence (a signed, witnessed contract to buy the house for reasonable - albeit low - market value) would believe there was a contract.

But here, I don't see that you can claim there was enough evidence of a serious and valid unilateral offer.

Re:Pepsi points

[TheRealMindChild]

What isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article OR the Snopes article was a rule in the system that you had to have at least HALF of the points for anything you were trying to obtain, THEN you could make up the other half of the points with so many cents per point.

In rick of seeming like a dork, I know this because I got everything in their actual catalog twice over. My buddy ran a bar and I got all of the points off of their 24 packs they went through.

Re:Pepsi points

[lwsimon]

I'd like to point out that military aircraft often fall into civilian hands, as you put it. There are quite a few T-34s flying around, and lots of WWII warbirds flown by civilians.

Now, a *Harrier* is a bit of a different story, because it is still in use and many of the systems are classified. It is unreasonable to expect them to deliver that - not because it is a military jet, though, but because Pepsi could not reasonably obtain one.

Re:Pepsi points

[darkmeridian]

The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points. The airplane was worth tens of millions. Also, the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract. (Pretend a store advertises a sale on computers, but runs out of stock. Can you enforce? No.)

The current cases is substantively different. The million dollars was a reward to justify his client's freedom, which is valuable enough to be reasonable. It wasn't an advertisement. Will the lawsuit succeed? Don't know. But the plaintiff has a good shot of getting his reliance damages such as his airfare and the like. I'm not so sure he can get his breach of contract damages ($1 million).

Re:Pepsi points

[DavidTC]

Technically, if that's on public property, them doing it naked is illegal, and because the contract requires an illegal thing, it is not valid.

Re:Pepsi points

[DavidTC]

No shit.

It's one thing for human beings to joke about contracts. That's understandable.

But lawyers should not. If they do, even if they don't have to pay, they should get disbarred for that behavior.

Re:Pepsi points

[geekoid]

And Leonard was screwed by the Judge.

The commercial makes an offer, it's pretty clear. This is what really gets my goat:
"The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for under a million dollars."

Companies give away prizes below their value ALL THE FUCKING TIME. A reasonable person would know that and have no reason to question Pepsi's offer as 'unreasonable'.

Pepsi screwed up, and then refused to pay.

Re:Pepsi points

[geekoid]

"what was ruled in the Pepsi Points Case was that the TV commercial didn't constitute an offer and that no reasonable person could believe that a company like Pepsi was prepared to convey a $23 million jet for under a million bucks."

Companies give stuff away below their value all the time.
If an electronic store says there giving away a free tv to the for 100 people, does that mean I should really expect them to not give away a TV? As a consumer, do I need to way to do some sort of cost vs. value motive for a company every time they give something away?

Pepsi is Huge, and 23, 000,000 is a very tine piece of their overall wealth. Pepsi should ahve ahd to give him the Jet, and then fire whoever let that commercial go out without a disclaimer.

And the PR'd the HELL out of it. They could ahve got 23 million worth of PR out of that, easy.

Re:Pepsi points

[kalirion]

The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points. The airplane was worth tens of millions. Also, the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract.

So Best Buy could run an add stating that "This Friday, all our computers and big screen TVs are $1 each!" and since it is such an unreasonable offer they'll get away with not following through?

Re:Pepsi points

[Petrini]

Alas, the Statute of Frauds section on $5,000 is in regards to a sale of goods over $5,000, excepting merchants in the course of normal business. A unilateral contract for services performed doesn't fall in that category.

Re:Pepsi points

[mpoulton]

The ruling in the Pepsi points case was based on the unreasonableness of the belief that a military jet would be given as a prize for buying Pepsi points. The airplane was worth tens of millions. Also, the commercial was seen as an advertisement and not an offer to enter into a contract.

So Best Buy could run an add stating that "This Friday, all our computers and big screen TVs are $1 each!" and since it is such an unreasonable offer they'll get away with not following through?

They would not be bound because advertisements are not generally considered offers of contract at all. There are some exceptions (generally for advertisement of a single item, or a definite limited number of items, on very specific terms) but in general businesses are not bound to deliver what they advertise as a matter of contract. There could be statutory violations for false advertising, but not breach of contract. The price/value ratio of the offer has nothing to do with whether they would be bound by it or not.

Re:Pepsi points

[Hal The Computer]

A clear example that you shouldn't take legal advice from random idiots on the internet.

The statute of frauds only applies to sales of land (and a few other non-relevant things). The $5000 amount you're thinking of come from the American UCC and applies to the sale of goods. And in most places in the US it's more likely to be $500 last I checked. Of course all of the above is not applicable to the alleged $1 million offer, as it doesn't involve the sale of goods. Sorry, you're wrong.

Re:Pepsi points

[JWSmythe]

There's a big difference there. Back in the day, the policy used to be that surplus was sold to the people, since it was there's to start with. For example, after WWII, my dad bought a surplus 03A3 in perfect condition. Now, 66 years after it's manufacture date, it's still in perfect condition, only being fired occasionally to prove it still works.

    Civilians had no problem buying surplus weapons, demilitarized aircraft, etc. The more modern approach to the advanced systems are to destroy them when they're retired. modern aircraft don't enjoy the same fate. There are still various things that can be purchased, but it's not like the "good old days", where you could buy some decent stuff.

    I've been watching government auctions, and a lot of the stuff cannot leave base until it's destroyed. For example, there was a lot of copper wire and pipe. I believe it was several tons. A provision on that sale was that it had to be destroyed on site. We're not talking about anything that could of been of any intelligence value. Just wire and pipe. There are some vehicles that are sold in somewhat serviceable condition, but most of those are civilian vehicles used in a government capacity. Specialty government vehicles are usually in such poor shape that they're only good to tow from the auction to the scrap yard for their metal value.

    There are plenty of provisions tied to almost everything now. Consider something like the Sea Shadow (IX-529). Sure, they're giving it away for free, but that's only once the Navy considers who it's going to, and knows that it's going to be on static display in a museum of their choosing. That means you can have this cool boat for free, but you can't take it out for a cruise, and they're not going to let just anyone have it. I'd pretty much guarantee that there are no engines, or electronics on board anyways, so what you get is the shell.

Re:Pepsi points

[True Vox]

Not in Brattleboro Vermont, my friend.

Re:Pepsi points

[DavidTC]

I don't know, nudity there is only legal without any lewd gestures...and climbing a flagpole naked seems pretty lewd. :)

Re:Pepsi points

[shentino]

Holy smokes you're right. Statute of frauds ppl!

Re:Pepsi points

[shentino]

Statue of frauds

Re:Pepsi points

[MaskedSlacker]

Never mind that military hardware like that is not exactly available to Pepsi in the first place.

Re:Pepsi points

[True Vox]

Touché. Or, given the subject matter, Tushie. :)

Re:Pepsi points

[ICLKennyG]

The UCC which is where the statute of frauds is based upon (not wikipedia) covers the sale of goods AND SERVICES.

Re:Pepsi points

[lwsimon]

Oh, I'm quite familiar with the process, actually. Two of my buddies have deuce-and-a-halfs, and I've been looking to buy one for about 2 years. I've not found the right deal yet, though.

In many cases, US equipment cannot be purchased in the US, but can be imported --- even if it is the same model. The import regulations are crazy, though, and as far as I can tell, you spend your money and cross your fingers. Still, in many cases the weapons mounts must be removed or mutilated, though I'm not sure what the regulations are on repairing that damage. There are also exceptions for historically significant vehicles (but not small arms, oddly).

I'm hoping to see the '68 and '86 MG regulations lifted, because I'm seriously wanting a Tavor. Until then, the best I can do is make a friend in Canada :\

You can sue a liar for lying?

[fictionpuss]

Should make politics more interesting. Who is in with me for a few class-action suits? $1 a share, excellent ROI.

Re:You can sue a liar for lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not suing for lying, he's suing for the promised goods.

Take "read my lips: no new taxes", for example. You'd sue George H. W. Bush for the amount of the new taxes you payed, not for the act of lying.

Re:You can sue a liar for lying?

[Archangel Michael]

Suing people for lying and applying it to Politics is an interesting suggestion.

Seriously, this kind of thing would easily change politics forever and probably in a good way. I would LOVE to have people sue both the (R) and (D) parties into oblivion so we can have REAL statesmen again, who aren't tied to stupid party lines.

However, the game is already rigged so that such a thing would never be able to take root, as some slimy lawyer will take campaign promises and say "there is no way he could have fulfilled that promise" and say it was a "joke" ....

Hey aren't most Politicians Lawyers? That might explain things.

Lack of standing

[MillionthMonkey]

He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.

Re:Lack of standing

[julesh]

He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.

Bullshit. See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case. This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.

Re:Lack of standing

[thesp]

Carbolic Smoke Ball says otherwise...

"The case concerned a flu remedy. The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be rewarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, because a contract was formed. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including an offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations."

I believe that it has some precedential value in the US.

Re:Lack of standing

[iserlohn]

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.

Re:Lack of standing

[MillionthMonkey]

Your "precedent" from the UK is about 120 YEARS OLD. It predates all the changes that were made in contract law during the New Deal- which has changed a lot since the 19th century.

No judge is going to want to set a huge precedent in an ambiguous case like this. It would take real balls and would certainly be overturned on appeal.

That's why if you RTFA the author predicts the judge will toss the case. In fact, here's an offer for you:

IF THE JUDGE DOESN'T THROW THE CASE OUT, YOU GET A FREE PONY. /sarcasm

Contracat ?

[Tiger4]

Offer and clear terms, acceptance and proof of performance. Seems like payment is next in order.

Re:Contracat ?

[icebike]

Nope.

Dustin Kolodziej did not kill four people.

Contract not fulfilled.

Re:Contracat ?

[gnick]

Proof of performance? From my intimate knowledge of this case based on the headline, the necessary performance was to prove guilt - Not to accomplish a road race. Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.

Of course, I could be putting too much faith into the headline...

Re:Contracat ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link with more details...

Times Online - Weird Cases: deal or no deal?

It seems that Cheney Mason (the mouthy lawyer) claimed it wasn't possible for his client to kill people in Atlanta at 5:20 pm and then appear on closed circuit TV at a hotel in Atlanta at 10 PM.

FTA:

Mason also declared it was impossible for anyone to disembark from an aircraft in Atlanta airport and get to the hotel five miles away in less than 28 minutes. He then said "I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it."

Apparently the earnest young law student managed to do just that. He flew from Orlando to Atlanta, and then (in under 28 minutes) made the final leg of the trip from the airplane at the gate to the hotel.

I'd love to see the court make Mister Mouthy Lawyer put his money where his mouth is.

Re:Contracat ?

[bladesjester]

Making stops to kill people takes much longer than stopping for potty breaks or tossing Gatorade bottles out of the car.

Not really. People are rather fragile. It doesn't take a lot to kill someone in all honesty.

What takes time is hiding the evidence. If you just want someone dead and don't care who finds the body, you can do it in a couple of minutes (and that's for opening an artery or two and letting them bleed out. Certain other ways can be even faster).

Re:Contracat ?

[zsau]

And given your sig, I would trust you on this one...

Re:Contracat ?

[jim_v2000]

No, that's not how it works. He was obviously not being serious in his offer, and this case will get tossed out of court. Just because someone says something like that doesn't mean it's an enforceable contract. It's obvious that he was stating his opinion as to the ability of one to make the trip in the allotted time, not offering anyone a million dollars.

Re:Contracat ?

[martas]

even so, what do you think would happen if i went on tv and offered 1 trillion dollars to anyone who can spit in a jar? if he proves that it was unreasonable to assume that he wasn't joking, i think he's off the hook (sorry for the double negative).

Re:Contracat ?

[martas]

bullet + brains = segfault. can't get much faster than that.

Re:Contracat ?

[dotgain]

Fair enough, but one would hope their Lawyer would have a better way with words than "bet you a million bucks"

Re:Contracat ?

[bladesjester]

As I said, some ways are faster. However, the problem with guns tends to be the noise. It's one thing to not care who finds the body, but most people, I would think, would generally want to be somewhere else when the body is found.

Sure, you can make a single use silencer, but that adds other difficulties (prep time, actually knowing/learning how to do it, etc etc etc)

Re:Contracat ?

[martas]

i see you've put quite a bit of thought into this. maybe we should meet up to, you know, compare notes? we might make more progress working together...

Re:Contracat ?

[Opportunist]

Obviously?

He's a judge. He wants to prove his client is innocent. I wouldn't call it "obviously a joke" when he offers a prize to anybody able to prove his point. Or, in this case, offers a prize to incite people to try and fail.

His problem is just that someone tried and didn't fail.

Re:Contracat ?

[thej1nx]

And if the lawyer actually states that he was offering money to incite others to commit murders, we all know he will be in hotter soup than merely reneging on a million dollar contract.

Contract fulfilled, unless lawyer really wishes to argue that he was illegally hiring folks for contract killing.

Re:Contracat ?

[hattig]

Indeed it appears that the murdering action occurs after this time, not during. It isn't "start, murder, drive, murder, drive, murder, arrive, murder" in under 28 minutes.

In addition the challenge included getting off the jet. He'd literally have to be by the door of the jet to get off the plane within ten minutes. In addition the challenge does mention the traffic aspect, so you would have to replicate the traffic on that day.

Re:Contracat ?

[DavidTC]

Incidentally, this is a stupid defense to start with.

As someone who's been in and out of the Atlanta airport, it is, indeed, busy, but if you don't have any checked luggage, and are smart enough to use the lower pick-up area, you can easily be out of that airport in 15 minutes if you're at far terminal. Maybe 10 if you actually planned it and were athletic enough to sprint.

Getting in, of course, is hell, but getting out is fairly easy. I've left the airport in 15 minutes.

I don't know what time this happened or how bad traffic would be at that time. There are indeed times of day that it would take more than 15-20 minutes to go 5 miles in Atlanta, although the airport itself doesn't have bad traffic.

Re:Contracat ?

[geekoid]

Maybe he is just better at it~

Re:Contracat ?

[jim_v2000]

He didn't make an offer. Saying "I'll give a million dollars for someone to prove me wrong" is not an offer, it's a statement of how certain he was that he was correct. Why do people check their brains at the door over this kind of stuff?

Re:Contracat ?

[Hatta]

Was he able to make it to the gym in 26 minutes too?

Re:Contracat ?

[Opportunist]

It talks directly to the greed center of the brain, usually that bypasses the part that's responsible for logic and reason.

For reference, see Nigeria scam.

Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

As a lawyer, shouldn't this douchebag know better than to grandstand and make promises like that?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[MaskedSlacker]

No.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[Ethanol-fueled]

Free speech can work for you and against you. Lawyers and judges are only men and women who are able to rationalize their biases through verbosity because they slogged it out through law school and then lived in a place where everybody agreed with their decisions until they gained consierable power.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[jim_v2000]

Grandstanding does not an enforceable contract make. No reasonable person would have thought he would actually pay someone a million dollars, and the reasonable person standard is what will be used in this case.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

If it's coming from someone with a background in law, I'd certainly expect them to understand it may be taken that way by people. It's one thing to use theatrics in a person-to-person discussion, but saying something like that on TV certainly gives the indication that he'd follow through to most reasonable people, myself included.

At the very least, this should be used as evidence against his client.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

Lawyers get away with too much bullshit. If I said (for example) "I'm going to kill him" about someone in front of police, I could end up in all kind of shit. Anything from a "menacing" charge up through murder (if someone else later kills him).

He made an idiotic statement in public, and deserves to be penalized for his stupidity.

After all the sleazy shit lawyers pull, I'm glad someone is twisting what one of them said to his advantage. Jolly good, says I!

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[countvlad]

Uh, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the threat of imminent bodily harm "I'm going to kill him" is just a TAD different than the at-best oral contract "I'll give you a million dollars if you can jump on one foot."

I'll just leave it at that.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[qc_dk]

Wouldn't the fact that you believed something because it happened on TV be an indicator that you are, in fact, not a reasonable person?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

I've used the former far more than the latter metaphorically. I just don't see why one should be considered "obviously" fallacious and the other not.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

So, you're implying that anyone who takes the news as anything close to the truth is unreasonable?

Now, biases of the networks aside, there's obvious bullshit, and then there's things like this that may well have been intended as theatrics, but this jackass had to know that someone might take him literally. And he said it anyway.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[dotgain]

Except jumping on foot is not only possible, it's easy. The money is offered for something the lawyer claims is impossible. There was no need for you to synthesise some hypothetical case when an actual one exists.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[Opportunist]

So the reasonable person's response would be to ignore that comment altogether and call the lawyer bluff and his speech baloney? Because that's basically the other possible option: Either take it serious, in which case he's have to put his money where his mouth is. Or call him a whisk and refuse to take him serious.

In other words: Saying that was really, really stupid, eh?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[thej1nx]

The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag. Indeed.

And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize. The guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!

And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals? Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?

What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make. Right?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[Theaetetus]

And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks?

If I said "I'll give you 10 million dollars if you can launch a reuseable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks" and you claimed we had a valid contract, you'd be laughed out of court. What's the difference between me saying it and the XPrize foundation, and why is the former not a valid contract while the latter is? Possibly the 9 page written contract they posted expressing all of the terms and conditions of their challenge.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[jim_v2000]

No, it was a figure of speech to say how impossible he thought it was. Most people correctly would understand that that was all he meant. This retard kid's case will rightly get tossed out of court.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[thej1nx]

Dear Clueless,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

Texaco would disagree with you, and they have a lost case of 11.1 billion USD to show for it.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[Theaetetus]

Dear Clueless,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

Texaco would disagree with you, and they have a lost case of 11.1 billion USD to show for it.

You missed the point. I never said "oral contracts aren't valid". They absolutely are.

What I said was that the 'offer' I made - "I'll give you 10 million dollars if you can launch a reuseable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks" is not specific enough and is therefore invalid. When does it expire? How is the 10 million payable? What is the definition of reuseable - all components, or just some? Etc. There's simply not enough detail there that a court could look at objectively to determine what the contract covers. XPrize, on the other hand, has an extensive contract detailing all of this. That's why theirs is a valid contract and my offer is not a valid contract. NOT simply because mine is an oral contract.

Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11.

[GaryPatterson]

The lawyer is a complete twit for basing a defense of his client on something that can (and has) been easily disproved.

The lawyer compounds his own stupidity by making a large cash offer for someone to prove him wrong.

Someone does that and asks for the money, and the lawyer puts the final nail is his coffin of bozo-ness by claiming it was just a joke all along. Ha ha, who wouldn't laugh at a trial of a man accused of four murders! Oh, those long nights must fly by with such hilarity!

Re:Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11.

[julesh]

Ha ha, who wouldn't laugh at a trial of a man accused of four murders! Oh, those long nights must fly by with such hilarity!

Everyone jokes about their work. Lawyers on murder cases are no different. Example: a few years ago I worked with a guy whose brother was a barrister, doing defence work on high profile cases. What he used to do, practically all the time, was he and the other barristers who worked at his chambers had a notice board, and every day somebody would post a 'word of the day' on it. They each had to work that word into the trials they were working on at some point during the day. Bonus points for doing it in innovative ways.

Re:Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11.

[Sj0]

Your honour, I contend that my client baba booey baba booey Howard Stern's penis. I rest my case.

Re:Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, come on, it worked for Jack Thompson, didn't it? He made a public claim that he would give a bunch of money to charity if someone went and made his sick, twisted video game for him. When someone did, he reneged and claimed it was a joke, and he didn't have to pay up at all! And look, he's still a respected lawyer who...

...oh.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL ROFL!! That is SO funny and SO fresh. lol *wiping tears from eyes*

Will jokes about past vice presidents ever grow old?? We can only hope not, else would miss hilarious gems like this one!

Cheney Mason

[unfunk]

...combining the worst points of Dick Cheney and Perry Mason...

In related news...

[Anarchduke]

Harvard Law School is thinking on teaching a class in shutting the hell up.

Re:In related news...

[Alsee]

I'm thinking of sending my ex-wife to Harvard Law School.

-

Re:In related news...

[L4t3r4lu5]

She's your ex-wife. What do you care if she's mouthy?!

Send your girlfriend!

Re:In related news...

[Dunbal]

She's your ex-wife. What do you care if she's mouthy?!

Exactly. I thought the whole purpose of a divorce was being able to just hang up the phone, delete the emails, etc. Because I have teenage kids, I usually give my ex wife 15 seconds of slack to determine if anything she will say is relevant or important, and usually I end up pulling the plug.

Someone is being dominated by their ex.

As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.

Re:In related news...

[geminidomino]

As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.

Either the relationship is still fresh, or she reads slashdot and knows your user id.

Re:In related news...

[digitalhermit]

Actually there is a series of Google videos that say exactly that. Search on "Don't talk to cops" and you'll get an extremely interesting video (well, at least the one from James Duane). It tells how even the simplest statement can work against you.

Re:In related news...

[geekoid]

"As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting."

Sure, but then who isn't compared to you~

Re:In related news...

[jdgeorge]

As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.

Either the relationship is still fresh, or she reads slashdot and knows your user id.

My money says she was looking over his shoulder while he posted that.

Re:In related news...

[Archangel Michael]

As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.

Either the relationship is still fresh, or she reads slashdot and knows your user id.

There are at least two things wrong with your analysis ....

1) Girlfriend? Seriously!
2) Girls on Slashdot? Seriously!

Geez. Next thing you're gonna try to tell me is that the Post Office is running Linux and DNF has been canceled.

Re:In related news...

[L4t3r4lu5]

If she reads slashdot, she's probably a keeper.

Florida Lawyers

[Anti_Climax]

What is it with Florida attorneys publicly offering money on clear terms and then backing out?

The last one that did it was disbarred for life, you'd think others wouldn't be in a hurry to follow his lead...

Re:Florida Lawyers

[Yvanhoe]

That is natural selection. Let the natural legal process operate

Re:Florida Lawyers

[Opportunist]

When you live in America's wang, you probably can't escape being a dick.

Re:Florida Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived in America's wang for 5 years. Now I live in America's hand. I'd much rather receive a hand job than give one.

Re:sanctions? I can just see the judge now...

[davidsyes]

In his chambers, censuring the daring counsel, threatening him with disbarment (if not dismemberment, hehehe):

"You're more of a Cheney than a Mason. You should have tuned your open source defence more like MANdrake, not DRAKE man, and you'll be on the STREET because didn't ask DELLA to do the drive. You are APAULING, counsel. THIS very well could be YOUR D-Day. Your ass may be BURGER, you HAMfisted TON of Grade D daring.

(Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason i was able to cobble together some of my twisty humour...)

Re:He didn't prove it though

[The_mad_linguist]

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.

An advertisement is not an offer....

[MillionthMonkey]

OK, corrected sentence:

If the guy had made an offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.

Re:He didn't prove it though

[Qubit]

All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone. For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo. ;-}

I think the lawyer is screwed either way. Either he

1) Admits that this guy made the trip in time and pay him $1 million (or perhaps do some out-of-court settlement with him), or

2) Admit that he just offered $1 million dollars for someone to drive between 2 states and kill 4 people.

I think that offering money for someone to kill 4 people is probably way up there in Felony land. Given that he's crossing state lines, you're talking Federal PMITA prison for a long, long time.

The only argument I imagine that the lawyer can make is that his comments were just a joke. But that basically means that anything else that he says in public is going to be perceived as a joke for quite some time. He's going to have to live with this shit for quite a while.

Judges often have a very wry sense of humor. I can see a judge finding some kind of interesting way to censure or otherwise reprimand the lawyer.

Seriously

[Tachys]

Nobody ever pays out these prove "impossible" thing and I give you $1 million dollars offers, and no one ever will.

I will give $1 million dollars to anyone that can prove otherwise.

Re:Seriously

[HeronBlademaster]

So if the guy suing the lawyer for the $1m wins, he can sue you for another $1m?

Re:Seriously

[Dunbal]

IANAL, but be careful: There's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down. Of course it's hard to sign things over the internet but...

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[GaryPatterson]

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.

Re:He didn't prove it though

[jim_v2000]

He's not going to need to argue much of anything to get out of the million dollar deal. It was obvious to anyone that he wasn't being serious. To say something like "I'd give a million dollars for a glass of water" when you're thirsty would not mean that you had to give someone a million dollars if they brought you water, as it would be obvious that you were simply saying how thirsty you were. The same goes for this case.

I welcome our new contracat overlords

[MillionthMonkey]

It might have been a "contra-cat" but it wasn't a contract except under the terms of Slashdot law.

Take it from me- I've been making money this way for years, and I always have my attorney review televised dares before I go bolting across state lines.

Good ol' South Texas College of Law

[NaijaGuy]

How fun to see South Texas College of Law in the news! I used to check my email in the library there when I recently worked in downtown Houston, because the multinational financial firm that laid me off had locked down access to Gmail and Facebook and Evite and all other sugar and spice in the online world. Nothing like those mid-afternoon breaks of walking a block to the school and getting a cappuccino out of their coffee machine and staring out the nice big windows of their library!

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[dgatwood]

Potatoe, potato.

Re:He didn't prove it though

[gd2shoe]

No, no, no. It isn't proof of guilt. What it does do though, is shoot his defense arguments in the foot. It should certainly be admissible by the prosecution on the basis of refuting the defense attorney. What this ultimately does, is make the defense start from scratch*, and change the prosecution's position very little.

*(Yes, I know it won't be entirely from scratch, but this will require a major restructuring.)

NewYorkCountryLawyer

[djkitsch]

Ray Beckerman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Beckerman

The judge will protect their own

[Alain Williams]

Kolodziej is unlikely to win - judges tend to protect their own and is likely to side with the lawyer.

Re:The judge will protect their own

[Phydaux]

From the article:

On the other hand, it's not very likely that Mason intended for anyone to take him seriously, so a judge might not really consider his statement a unilateral contract. Without knowing more about Texas contract law, I'd wager that the judge will toss the case, save Mason a million clams and give Kolodziej a lesson in real world contracts.

I doubt Kolodziej will get anything, it was clearly hyperbole. But Mason has still shot himself in the foot, loosing this defence argument, because even if the prosecution don't use Kolodziej's tape, I think they could send one of their lackeys to do exactly the same thing.

Re:The judge will protect their own

[Quothz]

I doubt Kolodziej will get anything, it was clearly hyperbole.

I don't think it's so clear. In this discussion, we've seen a number of articulate, thoughtful arguments that Mason should pony up. The question is whether a "reasonable person" would perceive the offer as serious. The fact that people do take it seriously lends a lot of weight to the notion that the courts should take it seriously.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Wow, did he really? Where? I must have missed this one.

Sanctions? Whoa, cowboy!

[tomhudson]

So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer

I see what you did!

Re:He didn't prove it though

[91degrees]

Perhaps. But a million dollars is a reasonable amount to pay for something that's substantially harder than getting a glass of water. The Randi institute offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove the existence of the paranormal. Tom Dwan is offering a million dollars to prove he's the best poker player ever. In the early 80's there were a number of competitions to find treasure worth at least this. It's not a huge amount to gamble to prove a client's innocence.

Re:He didn't prove it though

[Opportunist]

Lawyer: "So it's undenyable that you had been there the night she was murdered!"
Witness (irate): "Are you fuckin' serious?"
Judge (muttered): "Nah, knowing him I'd say he's just kidding."
Jury: *laughter*

Re:He didn't prove it though

[thej1nx]

True.

On the other hand, providing a glass of water is a known easy activity. Normally the people who make such statements, do not do it on television specifically as a challenge.

If you went on live television, and stated that you would provide a million dollar to the person who managed to find water on moon and brought a glass full of the water to you, you will indeed be taken seriously, considering that you actually seriously claimed the task to be impossible, and the other person would probably have to go to significant trouble in order to fulfill your challenge.

Kolodziej failed his murderous mission so no money

[SoulEye]

I vote that Kolodziej get no money due to the simple fact that he forgot to kill 4 people during his trip. If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right, eh? Ok, so maybe that wasn't in the criteria, but it should have been, gosh darnit!

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[flewp]

I am American, and when I first heard Cheney shot his friend hunting, I thought it was a joke - I had been away from the various media sources all day (TV, radio, internet), and when I came home to my roommate watching The Daily Show, I thought they had gone from making fun of actual news topics to generating their own fake news headlines like The Onion. Now, I knew my roommate kept up on the actual news, and just turned to The Daily Show for a humorous slant on it, but I was still convinced it was all a big joke.

Really, now

[krygny]

Does anybody really care which one of these lawyer scumbags prevails?

Re:Really, now

[hansamurai]

Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.

a petty smart lawyer

[TRRosen]

see he's already laying grounds for an appeal due to inadequate representation.

first rule in law school is never ask a question you don't already know the answer too. asking people to prove that something is possible if you don't know for sure is part of that.

I really don't get it!

[dogganos]

If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me? Which law is that? The "You Said It Now" Act ???

Re:I really don't get it!

[St.Creed]

There are a few other requirements, if i read the relevant caselaw correctly:
* Does the other side have to undergo something that could be considered a negative experience. Running very fast over a long distance might be considered as such.
* Would you gain a material benefit? Not in this case, but if you sold something and said: "the first person to buy this will get his money back" then this clause would be valid.
* Is the statement intended to be taken serious or could it be considered as such? With just "20 bucks" that might be easier than with 20000, so you're at risk there.
* Is acceptance of the contract indicated in some way? In the textbook case, showing up and claiming was considered acceptance.

If you did this at random for no apparent reason, clause 2 and 3 would probably not apply. If you were a hotdogseller however, they would apply and I think you could be taken to court with a moderate chance of success for the claimant.

Summary: be carefull what you ask - you might get it :)

Re:I really don't get it!

[Quothz]

If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me? Which law is that? The "You Said It Now" Act ???

I think that one falls under The I Don't Want This Crowd of Angry People to Break My Legs Act of 1879, which was upheld in Sambrowski v. Oh, God, Here, Please Just Take the Money and Stop.

Vial Criminals?

[PincushionMan]

Is a vial criminal one that steals test tubes?

Re:Vial Criminals?

[Sj0]

Remember Chairface Chippendale from The Tick? Same idea applies.

Horrible villain. He can store stuff in his head!

Re:Vial Criminals?

[crrkrieger]

Is a vial criminal one that steals test tubes?

I said I was a lawyer, not an english major! Being a lawyer, I charge extra for spell checking.

Re:Vial Criminals?

[Wodin]

But your spell checker would not have caught that one :)

Not the first time either

[Drakkenmensch]

You should never believe a lawyer who says on television that he will give you (or someone else) money if you can perform some task to which he defines the terms. Some years ago, Jack Thompson challenged gamers to create a violent videogame where a grizzled game designer goes on a bloody rampage across the office of "Take One" studios, an obvious rip on the name of Take Two who designed Thompson's nemesis, Grand Theft Auto. He stated he would give 10,000$ to charity if someone did... and when the challenge was taken and completed, he quickly backpedaled that he did not mean it and did not have to pay. Penny Arcade eventually donated the money, in his name, to a children's charity... and Thompson went to the police, claiming that Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins were criminally harassing him as a result of this donation. I swear I am not making this up.

Re:Not the first time either

[bigbigbison]

Jacko was my first thought when I read this. Thompson is from Florida too. Must be something in the water down there...

Re:Not the first time either

[Drakkenmensch]

Those interested in the depths of Thompson's madness should read up as well on his correspondance with Scott Ramsoonair of VGcats fame. It's even more bizarre and twisted than the Penny Arcade case.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[LuvlyOvipositor]

The idea is to say a little bit of the truth, not too much cause then you'll be trolling.

Re:He intended the audience to believe him

[Dunbal]

Why else would he have said such a thing?

      That depends, did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question? In that case it's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members, and should be sanctioned/disbarred.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[Sj0]

lol, Gerald Ford was so stupid, he though 'Beijing' was a verb.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[zippthorne]

It was birdshot, on a boutique hunting range. It definitely wasn't deer (you shoot a deer with birdshot, that's beyond unnecessarily cruel). It was probably quail.

-1 : Clueless

[dazedNconfuzed]

It's posts like yours that inspired my sig.

The challenge was not to prove the guy committed the murders within that time, it was to prove he could make it from airport terminal to hotel security camera within that time.

Heck, many times I've made it from the same terminal to 10x the distance in just 2x the time.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[BobMcD]

Wow, did he really? Where? I must have missed this one.

I'll bite...

It certainly reads like he was taking credit for it to me:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Some draw distinctions between 'invented' and 'creating', but those are highly technical and go against the spirit of what he said. While he didn't use those EXACT words, he sought credit for 'creating' it. Deserved or not, a little humility may have served him better.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[BobMcD]

That is not off-topic, and goes directly towards the statement of its parent. Someone with points, please fix it.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first heard that Cheney had shot his friend, I immediately declared him my personal hero. Not that I like Cheney, mind you -- quite the contrary. But I had recently stated to several friends that someone should just pick up a gun and just start shooting republicans in the face, and that the person who did would be my personal hero.

So, I was obligated. I just never imagined it would be HIM.

But WHICH sort of dollars?

[M-RES]

He only says he'll pay a million dollars. Does he specify US Dollars? He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars (which is pegged at 7.5 to 1 USD!!!). Differing exchange rates could mean he only has to pay a small amount in USD. If he was talking about PSD (Psuedodollars) which I believe have the current exchange rate of 1,000,000 PSD to 1 USD, then the maths is easy! This kid needs to prove he meant USD or get out of court...

Re:But WHICH sort of dollars?

[Maniacal]

Or he could just do what my 12 year old son does whenever he bets me on something and loses - "Oh, I said I'd give you a million "doll hairs". Let me go get those for you"

Anything but....

[postermmxvicom]

sporange

Are you serious?

[cciRRus]

This has got to be the weakest defense example posted here.

Statute of Fraud

[WillRobinson]

Reading on the not so always reliable Wikipedia that only apply to sale of goods. Might not be valid in this case. BUT IANAL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds

IANAL

[westlake]

He only says he'll pay a million dollars. Does he specify US Dollars? He could mean ANY sort of dollars - Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Hong Kong dollars

Don't quit your day job.

Re:But did he kill four people?

[DavidTC]

The guy didn't kill any people during those 28 minute.

The prosecution claims that he murdered people in Florida, flew back to Georgia under a false name, the plane landed, he got off it, and then showed up on security cameras 28 minutes later at his hotel.

The defense is claiming that's impossible, he couldn't have made it from the airport in that time.

This can't be in America!

[Doug52392]

Since when can you sue a lawyer for lying?

Trust me, if you could, I'd be a billionaire overnight!

You're Right

[aardwolf64]

You're absolutely right... You know, he WAS convicted of "gunning down" four people, and we all know how long it takes to pull a freaking trigger...

Re:You're Right

[Khyber]

Or toss a grenade into a crowded area like a grocery store.

Death is so easy, it only takes a split second.

Orange sounds like

[jpvlsmv]

I would ARRANGE to have a suitable homophone for orange, but unfortunately, my accent doesn't let me mangle pronunciation like that.

--Joe

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[mcvos]

It was probably quail.

He shot Dan?

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[mjm1231]

I would agree that it is not the most modest statement, but the meaning is clear enough, and seems to be typical campaign rhetoric.

The statement begins with the phrase "During my service in the United States Congress", which should make it clear to anyone who understands what words mean that anything that follows is related to that service. To draw the inference that "creating the internet" refers to legislation requires only the knowledge that the primary service of a US Congressman is legislation. It seems an obvious conclusion that those who misinterpret Gore's statement must lack this knowledge.

Unfortunately, it is no longer legal to require any sort of exam to be eligible to vote.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[scot4875]

Way to go on addressing the "create" vs. "invent," while missing the entire point.

Before Gore pushed it forward, there was no public internet. You can spin it however you want, but Gore clearly wasn't trying to take credit for inventing network hardware or protocols or anything of the sort. He was just taking (deserved) credit for opening up the private ARPANet to the public.

--Jeremy

Sure, I'll get right on that

[Weedhopper]

Okay. I'll make it a point to personally care about every criminal act that takes place in the United States of America.

I'll get right on that. Yeah.

In the meantime, I'm going to pretend like this system of common law that we have doesn't exist - where a unilateral contract offered on national broadcast television may or may not set a binding precedent.

The point of the justice system...

[tlambert]

The point of the justice system is to provide a public disincentive for future violations of a given law by the population of society at large.

It can't bring murder victims back from the dead, it's not there to extract vengence, it's not there to reform criminals into useful members of society, and it's not there to balance some imaginary cosmic scale (which, if it existed, would be enforced by the laws of physics without the need for human intervention).

In fact, it is possible for it to serve its purpose without an actual guilty party simply by demonstrating to potential future transgressors what will happen to a guilty party if they are caught.

Any argument claiming that the demonstration won't stop a crime is either a claim that the penalty is insufficient to provide disincentive, or they are arguing that no disincentive is sufficient for some people (which is true: we call those people "sociopaths", and we lock them away indefinitely in mental institutions when we identify them).

-- Terry

Get off your high horse, Care Troll

[spun]

How many murders were committed the year of this trial? How many other trials were there? Do you care about all of them? Not in an abstract sense, because anyone can claim to care about something they have just heard about: in a real sense, DO YOU CARE? If your answer is anything but, 'no, I do not care in any concrete sense of the word' then we know you are a liar. You may care about 'justice' and 'people' and other abstract concepts, and these trials represent those concepts, but you do not actually care about the people involved because you do not know them and have never in your life done anything for them. Seriously, have you spared one moment of thought for any of them? How could you have, you don't know anything about those trials, they are, to you, completely abstract. Like this case. Weedhopper was being honest, you are merely pontificating about morality, possibly to make yourself look better. You are a what I like to call a Care Troll. You probably also feign offense when people joke about the recently dead, don't you? Care Trolls don't really care about anything but looking superior to others.

The four engineers

[professorguy]

"The four engineers
wear orange brassieres."

Can just anyone acquire the Harrier shown?

[spun]

No, they are only available to the military, thus, the commercial must have been a joke. However, anyone can acquire a million dollars. Therefore, there is some doubt whether this was a joke. I mean, yeah, it is pretty obvious the lawyer was not serious, but is 'pretty obvious' good enough? I guess we'll find out at the trial, if it goes to trial. Whichever way that goes, it is the original lawyer who loses and the law student who wins. The lawyer loses face, while the law student gains a reputation. Who would you hire, a dumbass who makes easily disproven claims, or the guy who goes out of his way to disprove them? To me, that law student looks pretty smart, and I'd hire him over the original lawyer any day (you know, assuming he passes the bar.) I don't think that kid ever expected to get his million dollars. He expected to get a little cheap publicity for his own law career.

Clearly the lawyer never saw Run Lola Run

[JoeBuck]

Franka Potente would have made it in 20 minutes flat, and if she failed she'd rewind the world to give herself two more tries.

Knock knock...

[HydroPhonic]

... who's there?

Orange.

Orange who?

Orange ya glad I didn't say banana? :)

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[The Slashdot 8Ball]

Potato, potahto.

English Nazis

[commodoresloat]

They have Nazis in England too? And why would they care about vocabulary anyway, I thought they just were into killing Jews and immigrants.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion