Slashdot Mirror
No Harrier Jet for Pepsi Points
XDG writes "The guy who sued Pepsi for failing to deliver a Harrier jump jet after he raised money the buy the requisite amount of Pepsi points has just lost the first round of his court case. According to the judge, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial
actually offered consumers a Harrier jet." More details are at
CNN. " The worse part is that Rob and I had already booked it for the flight out to LWCE.
It's not that ridicious. Assuming pepsi sales 20 cents on every can they sell. (would have lower) 7million points is 1.4m doughts. Giving away an award (police car-crashing harrier jet) at the 6% of it's value is not that outratgous.
Memorex keep giving away blank 10pack cd-r for free after rebate. How's that different from giving away a harrier jet. Assuming you government allow you to obtain a harrier jet and Pepsi would have to give the guy a functional jet according to the commercial (which I doubt it). Pepsi just have to buy a beat up old harrier which can barely lift the ground for 5 million or so. That's pretty good publicity stung. I'm pretty sure it will make nytimes first page. Now tell me why is this such a dumb joke everybody can see?
>No, clearly from context, one knows that comedians in
:-)
>a club or on TV are telling jokes and are not to be taken seriously.
Exactly... And from the conext of a Harrier Jet next to a Baseball cap, one knows that it is not to be taken seriously.
The other major point you made was that PepsiCo was offering prizes, hence it was a promotion... The spot on TV is still a commercial, and I still think that companies have the right to use humour in their ad. It is unreasonable to make every promotion exclude any sort of humour... I'm just a little fed up with the amount of litigation in todays society.
Oh well... not like we can do anything about it anyway... Thanks for the rational response though...
So, what you are telling us is that if we show it in a commercial, we have to make available. Air freshiners have to actually turn your livingroom into a field of flowers on a bright sunny day? That if I use this soap, I'll be magically transported to Ireland to suds up under a waterfall? That if I buy these gortty tires, a little thing will come out of the ground and ask my what kind of road I want to drive on?
NO! Get real folks, such things don't happen. It's an add gimick. I buy products based on the quality of the item, my need for the item, or the preference for the item. If all things are equal between items, I'll pick the one that has the catchy add.
Example: I was in need of a cooler for to take to the beach. Wal-Mart had three coolerr brands. All were of the same size, all had wheels, all were the same cost, and I knew the quality was equal. What got me to buy the one I did was a little sticker on the cooler. "Think of it as a SUV for bologna sandwiches". I knew that it wasn't really an SUV, but I bought it because the company had a sense of humor. Pepsi had a sense of humor and it's being shoved in thier face by some smart-ass, snot-nosed twerp with friends who have more money than brain cells.
All that Pepsi should have to do is to reimburse the kid for the points that the kid actually bought, not earned. I had 1300 points and didn't use them, but you don't see me suing
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Well, perhaps he shouldn't get the jet (at least not unless they took out the missle lauchers, etc.). I *do* think, however, that it would be reasonable that he get a refund, plus a time & materials invested payback. After all, it WAS false advertising. Even if they intended it as humor, he appears to have taken it seriously.. so he shouldn't loose on the deal.
And if a jet is unreasonable, where, exactly, does the line get drawn? What about a computer? A TerraByte disk drive? A lifetime supply of Windows operating system upgrades?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You are a true idiot. Apparently your brain can't comprehend humor. Are you honestly telling us all that you really thought Pepsi would give away a warplane to some schmoe who came up with that many points?
Maybe it's time mother nature starts eliminating the stupid ones. They can start with this guy and then you. What a doofus....
Pardon me if I disagree. Violently.
Some people want their coffee at 190 F, so that they can add sugar and creamer and still have it be warm enough to taste good after sitting for a while. Sure, you get worse scalds from 190 degree coffee than 160 degree coffee; that's the tradeoff. If that's how McDonald's customers want their coffee, they should have no right to complain if they mis-handle it and hurt themselves. If you want cooler coffee, you can always buy it somewhere else.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Some labels are needed, like "This is poison, don't drink", but it gets stupid. Some power mowers say something to the effect of "Don't pick this up, while it is running, and try to cut your shrubs". We have to start taking some responsibility for ourselves, or the nanny-state will continue to grow.
You drink the beer the commercial told you to drink, what? you're not suddenly surrounded by bikini models?
Nothing in the commercial ever makes the claim that women will appear for you. The commercial simply shows women appearing. It's a story, not a promise.
You buy that new SUV and try to drive it to the summit of your nearest snow capped mountain, you don't make it?
This one's admittedly a little tricker. There are several commercials of this type. One that I recall in particular has the guys on the mountain top asking each other "How are we gonna get back down?" I thought that was clever. Others have disclaimers. Still others simply show a vehicle on a mountain top, without showing it having been driven at all. I'd have to watch the whole commercial in question and then get back to you with my opinion. For the record, I don't recall ever seeing any that promised you that you could drive your SUV in that fashion. They may make you think you can do it, but unless they actually say so, they haven't crossed the line into false advertising.
You use that shampoo, but don't achieve orgasm in the shower.
You're way off base with this one. The commercial promises you an "organic" experience. That's "organic", not "orgasmic". Yes, there's a pun here -- the words are similar, and this is certainly not accidental. Also note that there's nothing in the commercial which states that the woman in question is having an orgasm. She's merely expressing pleasure. Finally, note that there's nothing which promises that the shampoo will cause you to have an orgasm. Maybe the woman in the commercial was having an orgasm, and maybe she wasn't -- but again, it's just a story, not a claim.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, it's about honesty. You can deceive with illusion; you can imply; you can tempt; you can entice; you can be as creative, clever and funny as you want. But you cannot lie with impunity.
Howcome americans insist on putting disclaimers on everything?
Not on everything. Only on the things that need them. You see, we have this naughty personal habit called honesty. It seems a senseless anachronism in today's fast-paced world, but we kinda like it.
Do you people really think it's reasonable that companies should people who hurt themselves because the act stupid? McDonalds and the coffee woman comes to mind!
That's a totally different case from the one this article discusses. One of them involves labeling laws for dangerous substances. The other involves truth in advertising. They have nothing in common!
HTH. HAND.
Before teh "average person" decides to go out and raise $700k for jet, maybe he should do a little research on the product he's investing in, hmm? Do you by a car without finding out a little about it first? This guy assumed that he either A) get a jet dirt cheap so he could resell it and make a profit or B) he could sue the pants off of Pepsi for false advertising when this failed. I find it amusing that, for once, the justice system is actually displaying some common freakin' sense.
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
An important factor is that the US doesn't have "loser pays" laws. In Canada and Britain, if you tried a stunt like that, not only would you be thrown out, you'd have to pay the other guy's legal fees.
you have to do it in the middle of the road.
cy
Actually, they did put a disclaimer. In the commercial, it actually said:
Harrier Jet 7,000,000 pepsi points
(Just Kidding)
Although, I'd heard the commercial was different in Canada and the U.S. (I guess Pepsi Canada is a little smarter than Pepsi U.S.A. =) )
If you can figure out a way to make an AV-8 go supersonic (without strapping on 30 JATO rockets) i will buy you one* :)
r aft/air-av8.html
o psto3.htm
see http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/airc
keep in mind that even at the harriers max ceiling at FL50 the speed of sound is still 660 mph, and the harrier is a low-level aircraft. therefore its engines are designed to have their max performance around sea level. Above that the engine is no longer performing on-design.
btw some newer business jets can go supersonic; I don't know what kind of licenses are required, but I have seen some advertisements about them. Here is a link to a story about one of Dassault's planned a/c:
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/nbaaday1/t
this is more aircraft than I was talking about, however-- i remember seeing an article about a cessna citation-class business aircraft capable of reaching Mach 1. Anyone else see this? I think it was in a trade mag of some sort.
* any reasonable person knows this is a joke. laugh.
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
I would drop the harrier jet and sue them for a helicopter. Just show that the commercial inferred the prize would be an aircraft of any type. He might actually get it.
Hey wankers, this dude has $700,000 and he's famous. I bet he's got more cash than most of us and is getting laid more than most of us. Hats off dude.
I got it slightly wrong: it was a Hawk jet (still made by BAe though), and it was four women (not two). Still, it's a nice story, David & Goliath writ very large. Read it here.
PLEASE
Moderate this moron out of exsistance . Trace the IP and DoS it.
Don't you read *diet coke* ?
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! What the hell has happened to intelligence in this country? I remember this commercial very well and laughed when the kid showed up at school in a Harrier jet. I GOT THE JOKE. This 24-year-old should be taken out back nd shot. So should the rest of you dips who think he's RIGHT!! Are you all now going to say everything you see in commercials is supposed to be 100% truth? They are about grabbing your attention, making you laugh, whatever. but to think I could get a Harrier jet for drinking soda is beyond absurd. I think my parents would send me to a shrink if I acted like this jerk.
He should be throun in jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit. And fined. And then have the judge beat him over the head with the heaviest Bible he can find. And you dopes who AGREE with him, should get in line behind him.
Where is a plague when you need it?
AC go home.
/. Fri., so here goes...
Nothing quite as futile as carrying on an argument with an AC, but I've pretty much decided to make this a
You're stupid. (oh wait, that was your argument...)
Yea I guess we should let advertisers say pretty much anything, and then pull the "just kidding" when they have to pay up. Then we could get marketers selling all sorts of wondrous things by saying "It's faster, more stable, plays more games, and works better" when in fact they are selling smoke and mirrors. Lets put the burden of proof on the consumer, it's not like they are paying for anything right?
+&x
Since when is reasonability required in the law? I see unreasonable things upheld by the courts all the time.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
You say they are prohibited by custom from advertising on TV. I take that to mean that there is nothing other than the view's of their peers that keeps them from doing it. Technically that's how it is here too. Except that there's a large number of lawyers who are just in it for a quick buck and have as little respect for their profession as the rest of the population does. These are the ones you see on TV
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
It's silly, it's ludicrous, and Pepsi's marketing department is full of idiots. At least, that's one way of looking at it.
The other way of looking at it is this. Pepsi advertised a jet, however unrealistically, to whomever comes up with a certain number of Pepsi Points. The short sighted moron who came up with this aspect of the contest was at fault. Since he was working for Pepsi (under contract or whatever the hell), Pepsi then becomes responsible. Breach of contract. False advertising. And a slew of other things I'll never have to fight in court.
This is going to sound hick-ish, but bear with me. When I was young my dad warned me about not being able to bite off more than you could chew. Don't pick fights with bullies much larger than yourself. And don't make promises you can't or don't intend on keeping. These are all good lessons, common sense tidbits of knowledge, but I guess an army of Super Lawyers© change all that. Bottom line, Pepsi made a promise with their ad campaign, and they owe this nimrod SOMETHING.
They give you a piece of paper when you try to buy the midtower system that compUSA advertises in ther flyer, huh?
Sure, lets argue that when they planted that flag a part of the moon became US-territory. But to say the 'the moon', i.e. all of it is US, is, to say the least, dumb. When the first person to land in, say america, planted his flag I am villing to bet no one single land would have agreed (including his own) that the entire continent was his. The planting-the-flag-makes-the-land-mine thing is restricted by geografical, or other, borders of some sort.
:)
Perhaps a bit long, of topic thing, but hey - the US better start understanding that they do not rule the world and everyone that walks it
Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
This looks to me like a typical American combination of personal greed and stupidity.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
This is one of the many reasons I do not subject myself to the idiocy that is television. I find it very disturbing that someone who is capable of coming up with $700,000 would also be stupid enough to think that Pepsi was really giving away a harrier jet. Of course, I still think Pepsi could be sued for violating some sort of truth in advertising law. But that is not the point. I just find it hard to believe that this is an actual event, and not some joke news item. Are people really this stupid? I need to contact this guy, I have some great ideas for other things he could do with that $700,000.
Swamp land, Moon acreage, SPAM in space, or a big lot of virtual acreage in CyberYuga. I wonder if he would go for any of these things?
-CZ
First, how many of you can legally bring guns to school? Why would you be allowed to land a FIGHTER in the parking lot?
By that rationale, since that Volkswagon comercial shows the car doing all sorts of illegal maneuvers, you can't reasonably assume they're actually selling the car. Examples abound of real products being portrayed as doing unreasonable things.
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record. Pepsi realized they screwed up after about a week and changed the commercial. Sounds like even they knew they were in a grey area.
I think it would probably be the other way round.
--
no reasonable person would like they could get the jet. maybe he isn't a reasonable man, hell, who is reasonable these days... i hope he appeals on the grounds the judge was irrational.
The Citadel wanted the benefits of tax dollars without incurring the associated obligations. Shannon Faulkner made sure that if women were going to pay for the Citadel, that women could attend.
That was not a joke, but Hoover assumed that most buyers would not take up the offer (because of restrictions on the flights, I think). In fact, large numbers of people bought Hoover appliances mainly so that they could get the free flights!
he should lose all rights associated with maturity and intelligence such as voting, drinking, etc.
Hey, cool! So, like, those of us with above-average IQs get extra votes? All right! How do I go about registering to get my extra votes?
Old people get more votes, too? Excellent! I'm 29 now, and I get 1 vote. So, when I'm 58, I should get two votes! This rocks!
You're absolutely wrong. The right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens 18 years of age or older. It's in the Constitution (the age limit having been lowered to 18 in a recent amendment). The right to drink alcohol is also guaranteed (the US government tried prohibition for a while, discovered that it led to an incredible increase in crime, and then changed back). The drinking age is 21 in most states because they've been blackmailed by federal money -- before that, many states (including Ohio, where I live) had lower drinking ages (18 in Ohio's case).
There are no rights which are granted based on maturity, although you do gain some rights with age. Additionally, there are absolutely no rights awarded based on intelligence.
(I'm obviously discussing only the USA. Other countries may or may not have such rights -- I wouldn't know.)
he's obviously just looking for a quick buck
I fail to see the problem.
You said it. "The whole thing is basically a scam..."
But what you write about the guy playing by the rules PEPSI set up, we say about the Pepsi for making contest rules then refusing to abide by them.
I got a couple t-shirts and a gym bag from the same promotion. It also took many months, as I recall. But nevertheless Pepsi honored its promotion.
What about the expensive jackets? Had I sent in a check for $100+ for a jacket, wouldn't I have a reasonable expectation of getting that jacket? I don't know anyone who got one, but neither do I know anyone who *didn't* despite meeting the terms of the offer.
So what's different about the Harrier jet? The ads treated it in a humorous fashion, but that isn't an indication that the offer wasn't serious. The very fact that Pepsi changed the point value from 7 million to 700 million after this guy made his claim says that Pepsi recognized that the claim was not completely unreasonable.
Why is it so unreasonable for him to take up Pepsi on what appears to be a bona fide offer?
To tell you the truth, Pepsi is getting a lot of negative PR from this mess. It could have offered to quietly settle the case for under $2M, enough to make the investors happy enough to back out of the suit, but instead they're trying to go back on their word. I see little difference between this and Microsoft vaporware.
(Could Pepsi had made a reasonable offer that the investors refused? I doubt it, since this was such a speculative investment to begin with. Better to accept a 100% return than gamble that a court won't uphold a 2000% return.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
That's absolutely untrue. She sued to get in with every intention of going, but dropped out because she was ostracized and couldn't handle the additional social isolation of being the sole female (at the time) over the standard rigors of Citadel training.
You're kidding, right?
Just like any negative statement about a person that is obviously false and satirical is not libel, any promise in advertising that is obviously false and satirical is not false advertising.
I am sure it is obvious to you that pepsi isn't in the business of giving away warplanes with the capacity to bomb and strafe small countries. :)
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
I don't think that it's reasonable for the guy to own a harrier jet any more that it would be for an individual to own field artillery or air to air missiles.
However, Pepsi should be forced to compensate the person with something of equivalent value to the advertised jet. They have made a promise, they screwed up the amounts and now they have to pay up. Tough. They should be careful about promising things.
The only other possible settlement would be for Pepsi not to have to pay the man but to be severly fined for false advertising. Pepsi presumably gained increased sales by having the jet in the advert so it should be fined to nullify this gain and discourage this sort of lying in the future.
Pavlos
Applying your standard, any add that uses humor is misleading and should be banned. What, if I let my dog eat tacos he's going to turn into a hideous, but bi-lingual, abomination? Clearly misleading! We have to enact a law to protect people from this sort of "advertising". While we're at it, why not make beepers available to the general population to remind them to breathe every second or two?
>you seem to sympathize with the lawyer's view
Hardly. I never said that. I was originally arguing the point that someone sued McD because they were stupid and spilled hot coffee on themselves. I agree that most people have the good sense to keep something as hot as coffee away from their crotch. She didn't sue for millions, she tried to get compensation for medical expenses. The jury was pissed that McD seemed to not even care that they had 700 other complaints of injuries and were unwilling to do anything for a 79 yr old woman wo was obviously injured beyond a simple coffee burn 'scald' (did you read the link, she had to be hospitalized?).
McDonalds' supposed motivation for using a higher temp was not so sugar would dissolve, it was to make more money on coffee by stretching the grounds. I'm not defending the lawyer. I don't think the woman who had 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized was 'stupid' for trying to get medical expenses reimbursed from Mickey D's.
I like my coffee hot and I keep it away from my package. But, I would be pissed if my mom had to have surgery because a large company wanted to squeeze every cent out of a cup of coffee at the expense of reasonable safety (I'm sorry, coffee should be hot enough to blister my tongue, not dissolve the muscles in my leg) and then the bastards wouldn't make even a token settlement offer. That's what is stupid. When you deal with the public like a large company as this does, you have to be a little smarter than that.
I don't care if you disagree, violently or otherwise. I just want to clarify my statement of opinion since you seemed to read things into it that I never intended.
Does anyone remember hearing about the two women who sneaked into the British Aerospace factory (where they make Harriers), climbed into the cockpit of a brand-new jet and smashed the dashboard up with hammers? They caused around £1,000,000 worth of damage, but when their case came to court they were let off on international human rights laws.
They proved the jets were being shipped to Indonesia for President Suhato so that he could bomb the E. Timorean people.
I guess Suharto should have bought some pepsi points instead!
It might have, if the U.S. hadn't signed the Outer Space Treaty. All the signatories of the Outer Space Treaty disavows claiming territory outsite Earth's atmosphere. The Antarctic Treaty provide a similar situation for Antarctica; in the latter case several countries had already made territorial claims which have been superceded by the Treaty.
1. Most are -- there's little reason for the press to cover the saner folks all the time. "If it bleeds, it leads..."
.50-cal anti-tank rifle, no.
2. 'coz they figured that most people had a sense of humor?
3. Detergents exist. It's a perfectly normal thing for a liquid to remove a *normal* stain if that's what it's advertised to do; if it's some weird chemical that was synthesized to bond with the shirt somehow, then no. E-mail programs also exist; now, if it claimed to be able to read your mail 5s after original transmission even if you were out near Bernard's Star, no. Shoes that protect your feet from stubbing or light objects falling on them, yes; shoes that save your feet if a wacko shoots them w/ a
Corporate giveaways that deterministically reward unlimited numbers of civvies with aircraft not available to them for far less than their value don't, but it's well established for random clothing items and miscellanous trinkets to be sold at a slight premium. There's an important difference.
4. Ads generally aren't good places for information, especially 30s spots. And heaven help us if humor flees to just the comics.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Okay, Pepsi meant it to be a joke, most people took it as a joke, but something like reason never stopped the US courts before, has it? You read every day about people getting money for absurd reasons, suing for absurd reasons, etc. A lot of times they win. (ie. It took 18 years before the Supreme Court finally judged and outlaw on dancing to be unconstitutional.) Pepsi could have easily said 70 billion pepsi points, and who ever spent 7 billion dollars on Pepsi could have the jet. If not knowing the law does not stop you from being prosecuted, shouldn't not being careful not be an excuse not to be prosecuted?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This thing is 50 points.
This thing is 100 points.
This thing is 250 points.
This thing is 7,000,000 points.
(Did you catch the joke? I missed it)
If you're trying to get someone's attention in our over advertised state you have to go over the edge, giving away a Harrier is definitely over the edge. Saying you're giving away a Harrier, and then not doing it, is trying to get the benefit without the cost, i.e. cheating.
(Sorry to be so argumentative, but it's Friday, been a long week, and this is cheaper and more fun than therapy)
+&x
I'm sick of multibillion international corporation running around laying false advertisement to us. Screw Pepsi, you choose to make"hip" commercial, you should PAY for it! (What's 23 million to pepsi anyway.)
Uh, speaking of intelligence... The average IQ, by definition, is 100. So where'd you get that "algorithm"?
It's like that quote: "My god! Our educational system is terrible! Half of the students are performing below the median!"
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Actually, you win money, with which you can buy blue dots... Hey, whatever you do with the money is probably okay with Sprite.
While the average reasonable person isn't expected to know that a Harrier normaly sells for US$23M, the average reasonable person can be expected to know that is costs much more.
I would have guessed US$10M. My lowball guess is still an order of magnitude higher than $700K.
I'd suspect that when he recruited investors he advised them that the value of the jet was much higher than $700K.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Pepsi really was offering the Harrier. Who's gonna drink 7M bottles of Pepsi?
Pepsi was making an absurd joke about the Harrier. Once they knew that someone was pretending to take it seriously, they amended their advertising. There no intent to make an offer on Pepsi's part. The plaintiff's raising of money for legal fees is evidence that he knew that there was no actual offer.
I'd hold out for the Ferrari Shumacher's not using.
By all the historical international laws of civilization, land was claimed by a representative planting his respective country's flag in the ground. Therefore, when the US flag was planted on the moon, that land became US territory as far as old international law is concerned. It may not be recognized as such today, however.
Think of the implications.
You drink the beer the commercial told you to drink, what? you're not suddenly surrounded by bikini models? Go sue...
You buy that new SUV and try to drive it to the summit of your nearest snow capped mountain, you don't make it? Go sue.
You use that shampoo, but don't achieve orgasm in the shower. Go sue..
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Yes, he shouldn't get the jet, but Pepsi shouldn't be allowed to blatantly advertise stuff like this either. I don't think the `average reasonable' person would know whether it's legal to own a Harrier jet or not. Also the idea that someone offering a $23 million jet for $700,000 is a clear indication that it's a joke is ridiculous. Firstly, the avg person does _not_ know that a Harrier is worth $23 million, maybe he thinks it's $2 million. Where do we draw the line? This judgement just says that it's fine for corporate America to put out whatever false ads they want, and nobody can do a damn thing about it.
I don't see where you get the idea that the guy actually believed he would get the jet, anyway. Maybe he was calling Pepsi's bluff. Every time I see one of these overblown ads on TV I get the urge to do it, but I can't be bothered to get off my ass and collect the money etc to actually file a lawsuit.
I think I'm going to set up a Linux box and offer the person who can break into it 1 QUADRIlLLION DOLLARS* as a prize.
* payable in $10 increments over the next 100 trillion years.
There are a lot of privately owned US military planes, jet or prop-driven. Foreign military planes are even more easily acquired, the Russians are willing to sell you a Su-27, arguably the best fighter aircraft on Earth, for about $10M. In case you are looking for good bargains on jet fighters; you might want to check www.barnstormers.com. You will see lots of people from Russia peddling flyable Migs/Sukhois. The last time I checked a Polish guy was offering non-flyable Mig-23s for $50K. A much better price for a lawn ornament. If you want something that can fly, you can buy a L-39 or heck, a flyable Mig-23 for about $100K. I can't wait until my stock options vest, and perhaps one day you can see a Mig-23 on a lawn on Sunnyvale or Cupertino and say, "hey, I know that Turkish guy, he posted at Slashdot about that!"
Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
I should put a Harrier up for auction at eBay.
I wonder what the consequences would be.
In legal matters as in code, you're stuck with what you say or write, not with what you mean to say or write.
I recall reading about a slightly similar case with the old Burma Shave company. For those who don't know, their gimmick was sets of roadside signs with advertizing poetry on them. One was "Free! Free! / A trip to Mars / For a thousand / Empty jars / -Burma Shave"
Sure enough, someone collected a thousand empty jars. IIRC, Burma Shave ended up sending him and his family on a vacation to a city called Marz in Germany.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why doesn't anyone have a sense of humor or irony anymore?
103 Celsius = 217 Fahrenheit
150 Celsius = 302 Fahrenheit
Physics can be useful you know.... no matter what you thought in high school.
he called your bluff, now deal with it :)
(can pepsi afford a harrier?)
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
Here are the "facts" of the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
:P
I fart in your general direction.
regardless of the IQ of the person suing (as many of you pointed out, he might not be the brightest), pepsi f*cked up...when you see commertials with race cars and stunts that say "proffecional driver, don't try...". the responsible companies cover their asses against litigation. Pepsi didn't...how's the guy to know how much a jet costs??? even if he did, it sounded like a good deal if you had the $700K...this isn't about the jet, but about pepsi being responsible. the kid should appeal. he should have won. that would have taught pepsi a lesson... think of it as punitive damages for misleading the stupid and naive public :-)
(maybe then they won't have enough money to pay that annoying girl with the voices in the ads...god i hate her!!!)
-igor
I used to be with it Then they changed what it was Now what I'm with isn't it and what's it seems weird and scary to
They should have given him what they REALLY used in the commercial -- a zip disk with the 3DStudio file of the Harrier.. For $700,000, I think it's well worth it! Maybe they didn't use 3DStudio, but you get the idea..
Applying your standard, any add that uses humor is misleading and should be banned. What, if I let my dog eat tacos he's going to turn into a hideous, but bi-lingual, abomination? Clearly misleading!
This is _NOT_ the same thing; (I assume you're referring to the Taco Bell ads..) they don't say that YOUR dog will speak spanish after eating their product, they say that _A_ dog did (and they don't even say that.)
Saying "this happened when we did x" is _NOT_ the same as saying "If you buy XXX of our product, we will give you XXX." The first one is a tall tale, the second is a promise.
You couldn't take the Taco Bell people to court if your dog doesn't speak spanish, because they never said it would; pepsico said that if you accumulate 7,000,000 points, then you get a jet.
Pepsi broke their promise, and they should have to pay.
Anyone who can afford it (and it is not really that expensive) can fly military aircraft.
For example, see this site.
103?
what are you smoking?
Karnal
This has always bothered me. It seems that *some* laws need to be followed to the letter, others are sort of wishy washy and the judge can decide if it should be applied or not. What's the deal with this? The whole reason adds have reams of small print is to protect the companies from sillyness like this. But Pepsi screwed up, so now they should pay up.
I agree that it is opportunistic litigation, but companies do it all the time (eg. Record companies vs. Diamond; private firms vs. AOL to find out private names; etc...), so why shouldn't individuals?
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Whether I believe they were really going to do it or not is beside the point. They offered a plane for 7 million points and didn't give it away. Did I think so no. They should not have made a false claim in their advertising. That is what false advertising IS. Or are you too stupid to comprehend that. Whats the difference if I say I'm giving away a new car for some stupid soda promotion and I don't follow through? Just because the cost of the Jet is considerably more then they shouldn't have to give away the prize? That is idiotic thinking. It comes down to this. If you don't want to honor your advertising claims then don't make them. End of story. And if they want to keep on doing it then the courts SHOULD rule against them. Maybe next time they'll do a better job of not bullshitting the consumer. And yes I'm a big "doofus" you fucking 3rd grader...and your a big poopyhead. I'm so offended
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
"Oh and expect several hundred bucks an hour to keep it in the air if you could get past those hurdles. Jets drink fuel like their is no tomorrow."
My friend that is in the Navy got to fly in the back seat of an F14, and he said the fuel alone burned during his 2 hour flight was $2k. So your estimate of a few hundred dollars an hour is a bit low.
But if someone has $700,000 to throw away without confirmation of his purchase the $1k/year fuel fee is nothing.
This guy will probably turn and sell the Harrier to some 3rd world country for $5 mill and be in serious hot water.
--
d9
If he got the jet, everyone with $700k would want one as well. Heck, I'll take one for that price! I could turn around and sell it for 25x that easily.
-- Virtual Windows Project
Other countries can award legal expenses to wrongly-sued parties. This has a great effect on limiting frivolous lawsuits. Where I live (Canada) the lawyers are also prohibited from taking a share of the outcome as payment. They are also, by custom, prohibited from advertising. Does anybody like those lawyer ads on tv?
When this story first came out, the guy said he wanted to charter it. He'd basically rent it out to people who wanted to ride in a Harrier. Charge $10,000 a passenger, and you'll get a return on his investment ($700,000) in just a short while. He wanted to make money on it.
Okay thats like totally screwed. Oh Sure a normal person really has no need for e jet.. but don't OFFER it if yer not gonna follow your promise.
...and if your real estate agent accidentally writes down $15,000 instead of $150,000 as the selling price for your home, I'll demand that you sell it to me for that price too.
Pepsi made a mistake. The only question is the cost of the consequence of that mistake. Giving the jet or cash equivalent is not a reasonable cost, especially since the guy could have checked with Pepsi that the offer was bonafide but did not -- because he expressly wanted to get to this point and win the case. He's a parasite, screw him.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I agree man... people are so uptight.
I went into the mall yesterday and yelled at the top of my lungs that I had a gun and was going to shoot everyone. Some people didn't get the joke! Can you believe it?
Now I'm being brought up on charges or some sh*t like that. Go figure.
How could it? They're just joking, right?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
No, I think the cost of these frivolous lawsuits is worth it to make America a living legal satire for the rest of the world's amusement. I mean, it's like something out of Jonathan Swift.
I mean, so 250 million people here live in shame, but almost 5 BILLION people worldwide will have a good laugh every morning when they read the latest news from America, where we have microwaveable foods that say "Heat for 6-8 minutes until hot. CAUTION - Product will be HOT! Do not spill on intern while same is giving Chief Executive a blowjob!"
This looks to me like a typical American combination of personal greed and stupidity.
And this looks to me life a typical American example of racism. Except you're not American, are you?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Companies cannot be allowed to go on forever sayings clearly untrue things, because no matter how many people are intelligent enough to see right through them, some people won't. I work in a computer store. Do you have any idea how many people believe that Win98 is actually faster and more stable that Win95? You don't want to know.
-- Terry
I think running a contest where the "winner" gets a rock concert in their back yard as equally ridiculous, but apparently it's worked for MTV.
Having said all that, however, I wonder what the official rules of the contest said. You know, the fine print that almost nobody reads but that the promoters are required to provide. Surely somebody going to the trouble of raising $700K would have spent 5 minutes reading the official rules first. It doesn't completely excuse Pepsico from their mistake of promoting a non-prize in their high-profile ads, but it should limit their liability. They should provide some reasonable compensation for the guy's time and money, but he's not entitled to a windfall.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that Pepsico/McDonalds/... should be held reasonably accountable for their actions, advertising claims, etc., but their mistakes shouldn't be somebody else's lottery ticket to riches.
To make this slightly relevant to slashdot's normal topics, I note with some glee that a lot of the marketing spew from Microsoft, which they've presented as testimony in their anti-trust trial, has fallen completely apart when examined for truthfulness in a court of law. It's a shame that the rest of the world is too tolerant of BS, then we wouldn't have exaggerated and/or meaningless claims in advertising like "Windows 98 makes everything up to 36% faster" or "Pentium III makes the Internet go faster" or "19-inch monitor (17.8-inch viewable area)".
Finally after reading through screen after screen of "give the kid the plane" someone concisely states the facts. Do we as American really wish to live in a society where the government makes it impossible for you to hurt yourself or be hurt by anybody? Sounds good on the outside, but the reality is it makes "1984" look like "Lord of the Flies"! Total protection is only possible under total tyranny. That doesn't even matter here, because it is obvious to any reasonable person that it was a joke, a humorous aside intended to provoke entertainment value. I guess they should have offered a Space Shuttle instead to ensure that the truly gullible among us didn't feel slighted.
The guy thought he saw a way to make a quick buck and now he's losing. He even admits, "it was too good to be true." Just somebody trying to beat the system.
By the way anyone who has been around high-performance, modern, military aircraft knows how ludicrous it is to even imagine owning such a plane. Especially one as complicated as a Harrier.
Active, maintained ground support equipment (GSE) to keep the sucker up and running; spare parts, fuel (JP-7?). All of these are items that would range from annoying (fuel) to nearly impossible (spares) to obtain. Hell, I'd like to see you come up with a complete set of Technical Orders (T.O.s) for this plane. When Thornton built his T-38 out of three scrap hulks it took him two years to get all the T.O.'s for it - and that's a common trainer!
Let's all admit together that it was a joke. False advertising? I seriously doubt it. What would a reasonable person think? Sure the guy wants to make his 3286% profit, who wouldn't? But it's not going to happen.
Try looking up the definition of SARCASM and get back to us....
= Sum(ni*xi)/Sum(i)
= (1*400 + 8*50)/9 = 88.9
Never calculate in public!
And to all of you idiots crying for Pepsi's head for "false advertising," buy a clue already.It amazes me how many people think they should get things for nothing...
You've missed the point. Nobody's saying that you should be able to get something for nothing.
What we're saying is that advertisers must stop lying. It's really that simple. I'd rather wade through three layers of disclaimers than have to guess which of the outrageous claims about a product are in fact lies.
"Act now and we'll throw in a free phone!"
"Act now and we'll throw in a free car!"
"Act now and we'll throw in a free house!"
We have laws for a good reason, you know. People and corporations have to take responsibility for their actions. We've let them get away with way too much shit already. This isn't about getting "things for nothing". It's about taking a stand for what's right.
While I agree with you somewhat I also think we are getting a little off point.
;)
1. Should people be smart enough to realize some things for themselves without the 300 line disclaimer? Yes
2. Are people always that smart? No, hahah let me append that HELL NO...there are a lot of stupid people in this world that believe everything they are told. Too bad all of us smart people can't trust a damn thing anyone says anymore because you have to EXPECT people to be lying. But its the way the world works these days.
3. Do I think that those people that are NOT smart enough deserve whatever they have coming to them? Yes
4. Do I think there should be truth in advertising? Yes
And #4 is really the whole point of my argument. Do I need a warning on my fork...hehe probably (JK), no I don't but when does it stop?
"EVERYONE WHO BUYS PEPSI WILL GET A MILLION DOLLARS"
Will that ever happen? Probably not but that is because there will be laws and fines if they are stupid enough to make the claim. Its not to protect the 90% of us that are smart enough its to protect the 10% of us that aren't. But don't think for a second that Pepsi wouldn't do that if they could:
a) get away with it
and
b) get just a few people to believe it
As for calling pepsi to Verify this. Thats bull...every time McDonalds gives away a car I should call them to confirm that its for real?
"Hello? McDonalds? Yes I just won a free bag of small fries from one of those peely off things on the soda....yes is that for real? Are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes?"
Its absurd...and I think if you think about it for a bit you'll see that too...Whats the difference if its a $0.60 bag of fries or a $20,000 car or a $23M jet?
OK I'm winded.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
my opinion: of course pespi can't give him a military aircraft, but i think pespi should be required to pay this man the $23M (cost of harrier acording to CNN) as a statement to say that they will honour the promises this company makes. Also it would be a modest punishment for the marketing department of pepsi (who seem to lack a little in their math skills and more) in this day and age of darwinism we like to call capitalism
I honestly think you have made the best point of anyone. This is false advertising at its finest... the level of intelligence of the person weather low *or* high is irrelevant.
Yeah, but on the other hand, the only way my wife's going to have an orgasm while in the shower, shampooing her hair is to...well, I can't say that on a public forum, but you know what I mean. Should we sue the makers of Herbal Esscances?
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Again, your lack of intelligence is sad. I wasn't SERIOUS about shooting people, you dope. Then again, maybe I am changing my mind....
Thats the whole thing though. They didn't say a model harriar jet and he never said I want the one from the commercial. They said a Harrier jet and he said he wanted a harrier jet. You would be right if they said "7M points for a model jump jet" but they didn't. So the same thing should apply for a car promotion. If they offer you a new 99 porche and you win you get a 99 porche not a model of it ( unless that was what they said they were giving away).
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
"Since each jet normally sells for $23 million, Wood said the possibility it could be bought for $700,000 was the first clue that the deal was 'too good to be true.'"
Well, obviously whoever originally arranged the commercial wasn't able to catch onto the fact that this offer was too good to be true. 7,000,000 pepsi points was meant to be a number too high to be obtainable. That was the joke, and also the reason that there was no disclaimer (that they should have put in there anyways). They obviously didn't know the value of the jet, or they wouldn't have set it that low. So, for that matter, why would the reasonable consumer be expected to know that. I don't like the idea of the guy messing with the system like that, and he probably doesn't deserve the jet, but at the same time, the courts shouldn't have the right to decide that an idiot spilling coffee on themselves and sueing is reasonable, but this is not. The whole system needs to be reworked, but in the mean time, at least use the same standards for everybody.
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson
Reminds me of that girl who sued to get into the Citadel (US Male-only military school). She was obviously not REALLY interested in going to the school, since she quit after her first day when she finally did get in.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
In the commercial, the jet was portrayed in the same manner as everything else. You have seen all the other commercials with disclaimer(such as...professional driver on closed course, do not try this at home) Pepsi had the responsibility to add a disclaimer, they failed, they should lose
Note: You aren't forbidden to own a private plane capable of M1.0+ speeds, there is a plane retailing for about .5 million that can hit M1.5. What you are forbidden to to is to fly it at such speeds except in special M+ corridors, of out past the 12 mile limit off the coast, IE International waters
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
The best way you can encourage companies to stop mindless ads is to not fall for them. They make them because they know people are idiots. They're taking advantage of them.
The ads may appear to be false advertising but they are skillfully crafted to not be. That is what marketers do -- push the boundries of linguistic definitions. With the 7 million Pepsi points, they can just say "It's obviously a joke". This lawsuit is scary because a) it really was a joke and he's stupid or he's trying to piss off Pepsi, b) there's a remote possibility we would get legal definitions of a joke or something as equally stupid. I severly doubt it will be a landmark case for The People vs. Advertisements.
I do agree, however, that the ads (if not most ads for anything) are idiotic and mindless.
Try reading the article next time. You could purchase Pepsi Points for 10 cents each. Hence, he needed $700,000.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
I love it when people get into intellectual wars with each other and can't even spell :)
If this guy seriously thought Pepsi was offering a Harrier Jet and was willing to spend $700,000 dollars to get it he should probably be removed from the gene-pool before he does anymore damage. I mean, seriously, Pepsi isn't going to be able to get ahold of a Harrier jet fighter, and even if they were the wouldn't just give it away like that.
Well, now he gets to get $700,000 worth of Pepsi crap, serves him right for being such a dumb ?uc?!
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Sorry, but I do not see how a military aircraft, even unarmed, can be seen as a prize by a reasonable person. Perhaphs I'm just a cynical Baffler reader, but isn't it an article of faith that adverts lie? Do you really believe, even for an instant, that lizards spend nights in the swamp talking about beer or that drinking soda will turn you into an extreme sports fanatic? There are so many serious advertising problems out there, like the whole of the Pharmaceuticals Industry campaign, and we spend time on whether its reasonable to expect a jet as a reward for drinking soda. I don't know if our willing blindness to serious problems, our insistance that we be protected from ourselves or our inability to grasp humor bothers me more.
If they did indeed change it after they initially said it would cost 7,000,000 pepsi points, it seems to me that they knew that it was reasonable for someone to think that 7,000,000 points would get them a Harrier. If they hadn't thought so, they wouldn't have pulled the commercial.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
I agree that Pepsi could claim that they have made an honest mistake and be let off. Presumably if an adverst displays an entirely wrong price for an item there is some precedent for what to do when people come to claim it. Pepsi's position is more suspect in this case since it may have benefited from displaying the jet (eg. by the offer getting talked about).
I do NOT agree that the case was frivolous, or the man stupid, or whatever, because a jet is an "unbelievable" or "innapropriate" prize. Pepsi could definitely afford to give one away. What kid would not like to have one? If the number of points was appropriate I would fully expect Pepsi to provide the jet, with a pilot for some period, as the grand prize.
Pavlos
Taco Bell recently offered 1 million dollars in exchange for 4 or 5 round cardboard tokens. If I had happened to collect those tokens and turn them in could Taco Bell have denied me the prize on the basis that it was "just a joke"??
The original version of the commercial had NO disclaimer, no indication that this company which makes multiple billions every year was not offering a jet. None. The guys should get his 700 thousand back, he should pay both legal fees, and Pepsi should be hit for attempting to defraud the guy out of 700 thousand.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Now, clearly Pepsi didn't mean to be offering a jet. But just as clearly, they meant people to think they were. That's the whole joke. But I think we've all met people who don't understand humor, especially subtle humor. Therefore I think that reasonable (if a little...slow) people could believe that Pepsi is offering a jet as a prize.
This is not to say that I think the plaintiff in this case is one of those people. But that's beside the point: he's trying to cash in on the stupidity of the rest of Pepsi's target audience and, as far as I'm concerned, more power to him.
So what you're saying is that we should judge things on lowest common denom? I guess that means we trash Shakespeare, Impressionist art and any OS that the idiot down the hall can't grasp in one easy lesson. You've likely read it, but pick up Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". That is the direction an argument like your's leads.
Having read a great number of comments and I have reached a point of saturation here. So, here is my comment. Pepsi made a mistake. The guy suing is making another mistake. I say that Pepsi should return the $700,000 and give the guy some free promo stuff. The guy then goes home after dropping the lawsuit. Then WE ALL learn from the mistakes made here so that they don't happen again. Trying to fleece Pepsi for their mistake is simply the wrong attitude to take. And Pepsi should have had a disclaimer but they didn't. Lets be reasonable here folks or else the world's just gonna get uglier and uglier to live in. I don't want that and I don't think that you do either. Thanks for listening.
When I saw the ad, the buddy I was with said "You know, if someone actually got 7 million points, they would have to give them the jet". We knew it was a joke, and we knew Pepsi had no intention of giving anyone a Harrier jet, but we felt that someone with that many points would have a strong legal case.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
From what I remember about the case at the time, the kid actually raised the money by getting investors. Not only did he raise money for the points, but also raised money for suing Pepsi since he knew they wouldn't give the plane to him. He figured the shot at the possible payoff of a 20-30 million dollar jet would attract enough investors for him to fund the venture. Expect an appeal on this one. It's all about money.
Not flaming, just explaining:
For an even number of samples, the median is the arithmetic average of the middle two samples in a sorted list. For an odd number of samples, the median is the middle value in the sorted list.
So, in this case, the median is 50.
The mode is the most commonly occuring value in the list. Again, this is 50.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Advertisers and marketing types are overjoyed when you actually believe their product will get you chicks, make your life more fun, and increase your popularity... Why are they suddenly suprised then when they say they are giving away a harrier jet and someone believes them?
I haven't seen the add, so I can't really comment much on how obvious it was as a joke. But I see this as those marketing pukes getting their just deserts.
Heh, they wanted dumb unquestioning americans to consume their goods... Congratulations, you've got them now.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I don't think you understand the word "plausible". There is no "could be plausible", there is just plausible (meaning: "could be true") and implausible ("could not be true").
Now then, back to what I originally said. I said I believe the commercial for a second. That is, I momentarily fell for it, then realized that it was not true. That is because the claim was plausible: Pepsi is a rich company and 7 million points would be hard to obtain. There is no logical, legal or financial reason this could not be a real prize.
The type of joke Pepsi was attempting to use is to make a claim that has surface plausibility but is unlikely and then laugh at the moment of confusion in the victim. This is like the time I told my wife that a snapping turtle is "a kind of bear". For a split-second she just looked at me and then she said "Nuh-uh".
Now, clearly Pepsi didn't mean to be offering a jet. But just as clearly, they meant people to think they were. That's the whole joke. But I think we've all met people who don't understand humor, especially subtle humor. Therefore I think that reasonable (if a little...slow) people could believe that Pepsi is offering a jet as a prize.
This is not to say that I think the plaintiff in this case is one of those people. But that's beside the point: he's trying to cash in on the stupidity of the rest of Pepsi's target audience and, as far as I'm concerned, more power to him.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
This paints McDonalds as money hungry for the extra cents from the coffee savings. However the cost of heating the water hotter will make up for the cents saved. In truth, there were customers who complained about the decreased tempature when my local mcDonalds lowered teh tempature. We ended up raisng the tempature (not as hot as it was, but the hottest that anyone could call normal, which didn't satisfy all customers)
"no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet." Um sorry, but most people are just plain stupid enough to believe that. Look how many people think the Blair Witch Project is not fiction. As far as the judges other point: "Since each jet normally sells for $23 million, Wood said the possibility it could be bought for $700,000 was the first clue that the deal was 'too good to be true.'" Uh huh, so the average reasonable person is expected to know how much a military jets costs. I say he should get the jet. There wasn't an * or anything else to indicate that it was a joke.
-AJ
I agree with your point, but the woman who sued did have a point that few media sources mentioned.
The woman as a direct result of that coffee's temprature, recieved serious burns to the groin. Had she tried to drink it(even just a sip to test it) she would have had serious burns on her face and lips. Granted she should have found a safer place for beverage, but the coffee was hotter than it should have been.
Actually a better example would be the woman who is suing a keyboard manufacturer for her carpel tunnel, even though the keyboard came with a pamphlet explaining carpel tunnel and how to avoid it.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
I think neither all of use here who say that the kid should get the jet nor the kid himself think that the jet was a reasonable offer. I agree that one could only be mocked for claiming that they expected Pepsi to happily hand out the jet. I think that the kid thought, as did everyone else, that Pepsi had been caught out.
However, the offer is certainly realizable. Harrier jets are in production and pepsi could certainly buy one, presumably without the weapons. Nor is it unreasonable for average people to want to own the jet. Sure, you would need a trained pilot to fly it byt you could hire one and charge for rides, or enjoy them with your friends. There is at least one Russian company offering rides on military jets for about $10000.
I do not know if the offer is unreasonable in terms of value, but it does not seem so compared to a lottery. If a jet costs $25M that is ony 35x the "ticket" price. If people had to buy Pepsi cans to raise the points, and a few tens of people had tried, Pepsi would be making a profit. Presumably it is understood that there is only one jet and that it would go to the first winner, or one chosen at random, as is common practice.
Pepsi's major mistake seems to be to allow arbitrary numbers of points to be bought. They could perhaps claim that buying points is intended to "top up" prize amounts and ask the guy to earn the points for the jet.
I agree that this is a speculative case and perhaps Pepsi ought to be fined rather than pay the plaintiff, but I would still like to see them lose.
Pavlos
>This a 'Merkin site, we use 'Merkin units. Find >yourself a fahrenheit-celsius converter and come >back.
I'm Englishman in America (definetly a minority), and you just repressed me! Prepare to be sued.
I think the Harrier jet at the end of the commerical was really cool, however it shouldn't have said 7 million points on the screen. Pepsi should have written an amount of points that exceeded the retail price of the jet, like all the other Pepsi stuff. So, say they make it 240 million points. That way, either no one tries to call their bluff, or they can actually deliver on it with no complaints.
:)
However, the number would seem a bit extreme for a commercial
I love how everything needs a disclaimer now. Something to do with that Lowest-common-denominator medium, TV.
This is but one of my favorite Homer quotes:
TV: Is there any cure for Superbowl fever? Take two tickets and call me in the morning.
WARNING: TICKETS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTERNALLY.
Homer: See Lisa, because of me, they have a warning!
Yeah. Hmmmm, she was one of the ones bitten by "Nannygate", right? Her and... Zoe Baird, if memory serves.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The thing is that the Harrier is classified as a
"Powered Lift" aircraft not an airplane. And at the molment there are effectivly no civilian powered life aircraft. So untill he could find a Flying instructor (CFI) Rated by the FAA to instruct him on how to fly it he could not legally fly it. Also it unlikley that the FAA would issue a civilian registration to a Harrier. Making it a very expensive lawn orimnet.
Oh and expect several hundred bucks an hour to keep it in the air if you could get past those hurdles. Jets drink fuel like their is no tomorrow.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I had to give up the caffeine thing after I passed out at work. The doctor asked me if I took stimulants (I think he was subtly asking if I did speed or cocaine), to which I answered in the negative. He was lost in deep thought for about a minute, and then asked how much coffee I drank a day. I told him, and he promptly told me to switch to decaf.
...
I sleep better at night now, but I miss that lightheaded buzz from drinking vast amounts of good coffee
Chris Wareham
For some reason the "just kidding" disclaimer only appeared on the Canadian version of the ad.
As other people have pointed out, if this guy can raise $700,000 from private investors for something this ludicrous, he can't be that stupid. So that rules out the possiblity that he is a childish little brat that doesn't get it that he can't get the jet. The other possiblity is that he knew all along (or at least pretty much all along) that you couldn't get the jet, and that it was just a joke.
In that case, the whole thing is basically a scam. What do you think he has done with that 700 grand? There's a good possibility that he is making a pretty penny off the interest. As far as him suing Pepsi, he's trying to make a point and/or an ass of himself. I think he made his point when he filed the lawsuit in the first place. I doubt Pepsi or Marlboro or any other company that does the points thing will make such a mistake again. The only reason for continuing the suit is to try and make some more money by making an ass out of yourself.
I'll bet you that when he went to those investors, he didn't say "I'm gonna make a 100 to 1 profit on this by selling the jet and you'll be even richer than you already are!" He probably went to them and said something along the lines of, "We can sue Pepsi for lots of money for this, so I need you to at least pretend to pony up that 700 grand, and to pay my legal fees, and we'll split the settlement and all be even richer, and who cares if we make ourselves look like noxious smelling assholes in the process!"
Making a living by suing other people is one of the most unrespectable employments possible. More so if you're filing ludicrous lawsuits, and even more so if you're not a friggin' lawyer.
-Cheetah
I think there's some algorithm that states the average IQ of the population falls by 10% every 3.75 years. We may have fallen below 50 at this point. This kid is a poster child for our nation.
Consider the throw a basketball through the hoop from the center-court/far-foul-line to win $10e6. The companies running these contests do not actually expect people to win. The companies take out insurance against anyone actually winning. The ability to complete the requirements is so tough that no one is expected to win. In any case the company pays for the promotion and expects to make it back in improved sales.
Why can't the jet promotion be considered a similar event. Company puts up outrageous prize ($1e6 for Boardwalk and Park Place) and takes a loss if someone actually wins. The whole idea is to offer up a big prize as a promotion. The promotion/commercial is an expensive venture that is expected to more than offset itself in sales.
We don't consider it odd that for $5 for fries and a coke we can win $1e6. Why should it be odd that for $.7e6 we can get $23e6. Pepsi never considered that someone would come up with the cash. That is their stupidity.
Pepsi clearly made the offer. They should not be able to claim that it is unreasonable. It was reasonable of them to consider that no one was going to come up with the points and they would not have to supply the jet. However someone did come up with the points and they should be held to deliver. Stupid Pepsi for not taking out insurance on the actual claiming of the prize.
Pepsi should be allowed to claim it was unreasonable that they expect anyone would actually win and that the actual promised prize is undeliverable due to legal reasons and pay the guy the equivalent in cash. (doesn't pepsi operate in a number of countries where the private ownership of military jets would not be a problem?)
it is a publicity stunt...Think on it...The Pepsi Points contest is long gone, but a few stories for the cost of their lawyers and the guys' lawyers, mere pittance to Pepsi, can get them international coverage.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Then complain to the judges. I expect a lot more people to realize that knives are not meant for stabbing others than to realize that prizes offered in a TV commercial might not actually be being offered just because they're too expensive. If the US requires a disclaimer in the first case, it definitely requires one in the second.
As to your point (3), YOU are supporting frivolous advertising.
Just like the ludricrous settlements awarded in personal injury cases, this court should have decided that Pepsi is responsible for their BS advertising propaganda. It would rein in much of the consciousness-spamming drivel that advertisers are spewing. We NEED a decision like this to tell advertisers that they are RESPONSIBLE for what they say. Without truth in advertising, we get what we have today: half-truths and deception that lead non-advertising-aware folks like me to believe their lies.
VISA is NOT everywhere you want to be.
EVERYTHING else is NOT covered by Mastercard.
A Coke won't make you smile.
80 dollar Nike shoes won't make you DO anything.
I'm sickened by the advertising in this country (USA). So much wasted effort, wasted lies, wasted man-hours, while we suffer a shortage of intelligent people for programming positions and teaching and countless other professions.
Advertisers are worse than lawyers.
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
Firstly, how is a member of the poblic supposed to know the value of the jet. Sure, $700000 seems low, but how should one know if the thing ought to cost $1M, $10M, or $100M. One could probably estimate that a fully functioning state of the art fighter jet would be in the tens of $M, but the Harrier may be thought of as some sort of vintage aircraft (it looks old fashined) and was obviously portrayed as a recreational vehicle, not a weapon.
Secondly, how are we to know the value of the jet promotion to Pepsi. The publicity gained by actually offering a jet may be worth over $100M to Pepsi for all I know.
Third, it is common to offer one ludicrously valuable Grand Prize in a contest of otherwise lackluster but numerous prizes because it increases the perceived value of all the other prizes. Many children (or not very realistic adults) will likely have bought cans of Pepsi because they thought, however subconsciously, that SOMEDAY they might get the jet.
Finally, it is a promotion for fuck' sake! You are supposed to get things for free.
Pavlos
It looks as if Pepsi has made a mistake and offered the jet for too few points. To me this is like advertising something that appears to be amazing value (as well as amazing itself) in among your normal products.
Judges recognize this as a cunning advertising ploy and tend to discourage it by ruling in favor of the person who calls the improbable offer. A judge will not, in general, uphold a contract that the company is clearly unable to deliver, or that would surely drive them out of business. Thus it would be reasonable for Pepsi (or any large company) to be held to this whereas your local shop would be let off.
The judge may be sympathetic if the company could convincingly claim that the incident was a mistake, in which case the person should probably be reinbursed for the cost of raising the ludicrous amount of prize tokens (bananas, ring pulls, or whatever).
In the end of the day the judge has to decide who is the least evil. The big corporation who is getting away with an irresponsible attention grabbing stunt, or the speculative smartass who calls their bluff. I imagine it is not without some glee when they rule in favor of the smartass.
This sort of case is usually speculative, not frivolous. The plaintiff does not have to claim to be so stupid as to have suffered some damage that the defendent had a duty to prevent. They only have to claim "you said you would sell me this so please do".
Pavlos
The AV-8 Harrier II is manufactured by McDonnell-Douglas. The Harrier MK I was manufactured by Hawker-Siddely (sp?) and the MK II was going to be a joint project. However, the two nations requirements diverged well into the project. Hence the MK II is only in current use by the USMC.
I'd use them both to break into churches to fill the altar services with peas and carrots.
No, I'm sorry...I was going to say something serious...I swear.
Oh yeah, has this guy seen 'True Lies' one two many times, or what?
In order to even make the claim he would have to have the required amount of points. That means he had to buy all the Pepsi products and is sitting on a warehouse full of Pepsi with the tops all taken off. He isn't making anything except an ass out of himself and a giant debt to his investors.
-- I can't say enough in 120 chars!
For sufficiently small values of "need."
I thought that my printer was shipped with snacks until I noticed that the dessicant said "do not eat."
If the sun screen I got for my car didn't tell my otherwise, I wouldn't remove it before driving.(And I would leave the "Emergency, call police" side visible.)
I'm sure that someone, somewhere needs to be advised that hair curling irons are for external use only.
The Harrier is used in modern US military avaition, though not as extensively as the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-117. There are laws on the books that require that all of a series of planes be completely decommissioned from military use before that variant is permitted to be sold for civilian usage. Pepsi would likely not have been permitted to obtain one as a result of these restrictions. The US government could have blocked obtaining the aircraft, even though it is of British manufacture.
I'll never be as good as I want to be. I can only be as good as I am.
"there is no such thing as a joke when it comes to matters of life and death"
Are you kidding me?!?!
Ever watch Monty Python? (just the first one to come to mind) plenty of dying, and plenty funny besides... need a better, more modern example?
GoldenEye, when that Boris guy stands up and says, "I am invincible!" and then gets iced over by liquid nitrogen (or whatever) that was pretty funny.
But you're right about the mall... not quite the example I was looking for. It doesn't quite fit.
I just don't agree with pepsi on this one... I remember the commercial and I knew that it was supposed to be funny, but I also noticed that there was nothing in the commercial that said so.
I just disagree with companies being able to falsely advertise. Yeah it's a funny lie, but it's a lie.
This all comes down to something called the 'Reasonable Man Standard'. The courts decided that no 'reasonable man' would take the claim that a soft drinks manufacturer would be giving away an extremely expensive, high-tech, and above all RESTRICTED piece of military hardware as a competition prize.
IMHO, this was just another case of opportunistic litigation.
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
That lost a similar case, where the company was offering expensive holidays, etc, if you bought their merchandise. A lot of customers bought, and didn't get anything, so sued. The judge ruled there, that what was offered was offered, joke or no joke.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
>Did he really believe that pepsi would give him a harrier jet?
God, I hope not. I find it a little easier to beleive that he just wants to play games with Pepsi and see if he can get some kind of settlement. It's easier to imagine that this guy is independently (sp?) wealthy, has a spare $700 K and some 'lawyer friends' who have nothing better to do than mess with a huge conglomerate than to beleive some twit who is stupid enough to think that a $23 million military jet could be had by collecting Pepsi points and that this moron could actually raise 700,000.
I remember when I first saw that ad and I got the 'joke' but I also reacted that it was kind of stupid to show a kid taking off from his lawn in a harrier, show a point value, and not have a disclaimer. I remember thinking, "I bet some idiot sues because they saw this ad and think its real". This guy might have thought the same thing and decided to go rattle someone's cage over at Pepsi hoping to get some stupid settlement.
In the USA, you can buy a field artillery gun, tank or jet fighter if you have the cash and the right permits and licenses. There are lots of people who collect and restore old military hardware. You might not be able to buy an AV-8B, but there are plenty of military aircraft out there in civilian hands. The main danger is to the pilot, not the public. You can die very quickly in a fighter if something breaks or you make an error.
I don't think this person saw the commercial and immediately thought to himself, "Wow, Pepsi's really giving away a Harrier Jet?!?!? I gotta get me one before they're all out!" I'm assuming (and yes, we all know what happens when one assumes, but i would hope this is the correct assumption) that he knew Pepsi was "joking", but saw that there was no disclaimer, so attempted to show Pepsi up (using the truth in advertising thing) and make them give him what they promised. (i think pepsi could have avoided this with a simple (albeit annoying) disclaimer, which they happened to put into the commercial as soon as this guy popped up with his points.)
well. it never said "7M for a real working military class Harrier jet" either. It SHOWED the jet (fake or not...) and the 7M under it so it was implying that you would get what you SAW for th 7M and that would be the "model" jet. (Probably just a mockup made with 2x4s and some fiberglass or something.)
Any thinking person would have called Pepsi to verify such an outrageous claim before even collecting the $700,000. This guy's a moron plain and simple.
Any thinking person wouldn't have given it a second thought that this was a fake prize in the first place.
Pepsi gave the American public a commercial assuming we as a country are smart enough to differentiate between rational and irrational. I guess Pepsi was wrong...
time to start sticking "Don't force this or any metallic object into your brain" stickers on forks I guess.
OK, so maybe the idea wasn't all that great, but look at what the guy did accomplish -- he managed to raise $700,000 from various sources to buy Pepsi points. This guy is every startup company's dream.
It was a 93 thousand dollar check and the story is linked to on www.bored.com
He eventually gave the money back, even thuogh he wasn't legally required to.
kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Wasn't saying they should give everyone a jet... this guy is the only one who tried to claim a Harrier during the period they were running that commercial, no? So give one to him and him only... everyone else missed their chance. And if they decide to advertise that they're giving away Harriers again, they might want to jack the Pepsi-point value up to 250 million or whatever...
he apparently has no money into it, he got investors to give him money and even his lawyers are in on the investment and they are absorbing all the legal fees. the kid won't lose a thing and he's getting all sorts of media attention.
That is such BS it's funny...
Go to biography.com and read up on Einstien.
That Highschool dropout story is just to make people feel better about themselves.
Omygod is that ever stupid! I can't believe that at all... I should come out with a 'Basketball' set of clothing and then sue the NBA for their use of the word.
Oh... and you might want to avoid the use of the word 'gay' to mean 'stupid'. Some people might judge your whole post on that, and disregard anything else you have to say.
I forget the name of the place, but there's a huge US government installation where they store surplus military aircraft. I remember seeing a magazine article about it a while back.
They mothball slightly older military hardware in the event that it's needed in a major military operation. As it happens the planes just gather dust until consigned to the scrapyard. The program showed a fleet of B-52's being chopped up in line with a US-Russia treaty on nuclear bomber destruction.
I noticed that they had a whole flock of Harrier jumpjets from the US Marine Air Corp in storage. I'm sure Pepsi could get one of these on the cheap to give to the sucker.
Chris Wareham
Are you implying that an Ad should be anything BUT dead facts?!?! If I want to be entertained it isn't going to happen in a commercial. I want to know what their product does and how it does it nothing more. I don't need flashing lights and large breasted women prancing around on screen to make me buy something. An Advertisement should be a set of facts about the product perhaps including a location where it is available and that's it. All of these absurd claims that are made in commercials are completely useless, a waste of resources. Pepsi should give the jet or the cash equivelant to the guy. And 7up should stop those god awful UN commercials.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
...Microsoft is releasing Windows Millennium and has decided to launch an advertising campaign which features a contest. In this contest, points are generated by a CPU-intensive program which only runs on Windows Millennium, each point is tagged with a unique identifier which you register with M$. Let's say a P2-400 running the contest's program can generate 1 point every hour. Microsoft keeps the contest open for a year (Windows Millennium SE will come out about that time). They say the grand prize is one of Bill Gates' houses, which one must redeem 40,000 points to win.
Let's say the fastest processor the contest's program ran on was an Athlon-600Mhz. During the year, clock speeds on the Athlon increase to 1.5GHz. Some geek builds a system based on this and supercools it, enabling it to run at 2.5GHz. He racks up the required points and wants the keys to the house.
Do you think he deserves the house?
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
B.S. Pepsi should have said specifically "this is a joke". They didn't. After I saw that commercial there was definitely some question as to whether or not it was real (No I am not an idiot, just saying "reasonable doubt", were it to apply to this case, exists). Advertisers take too many liberties in establishing their hooks, Pepsi should cough up the prize or it's cash equivelent, just for being so stupid. Expecting "Joe" to know how much a jump jet costs is ludicrous. My guess is that Pepsi has much better lawyers.
+&x
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
unless you are viewing newest first then nobody will ever see this.
first off this jerk is the reason that there are three paragraphs of tiny text everywhere now.
second off, given that, you've got to admire that kind of EFFORT for what is clearly a joke on both sides.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
I beg to differ. My 80 dollar Nikes most certainly DID make me do something:
:)
I cried when I got the credit card statement.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
You are absolutely correct!
It did have the (Just Kidding) that appears a few seconds after the "Harrier Jet 7,000,000 pepsi points".
First, thanks for basically not responding to his flames in kind.
Second, the question is can, under your vision of truth in advertising, any claim that is clearly in jest to any reasonable person be offered without 3000 lines of legal disclaimer? Look at those SUV adds with tea or something being served as the truck bounces down a back-country road. They have a quick disclaimer to void the inevitable lawsuit that this sort of literalist thinking would spawn, but I'm sure there is more than one lawyer hoping to meet the yutz who can't read that fast and wants to sue because he burned his little yutz when the tea spilled in his lap. We are adults and have to take responsibility for our actions, demanding that the Government be a national nanny is collective suicide.
a 33:1 return on investment ($700K for $23M) is FAR more reasonable a contest investment->return ratio than is something like the state-sanctioned PowerBall or other "Super" lottos (didn't someone just win something like $115M from a single $1.00 ticket?)
The point of entering a contest like this is to get something for much less than its value. Happens all the time in charity raffles, lotteries, etc. Why is it so hard for the judge to accept that?
This comes down to a simple matter of Pepsi's advertising department having a mouth that was writing checks their ass couldn't cash, and now they're going to get big lawyers and make it even more costly for him to actually collect on something they're legally obligated to do.
Well, it looks like you can't comprehend the fact that no one or no company would ever give away a 400 million dollar war plane. Anyone who thinks this is false advertising and Pepsi should pay because of it, as I've said repeatedly, is a dope. This is different than "throwing in a free phone." Get real.
You'll note that *I* didn't say we should judge by the lowest denom, you did.
Also note that judging legal cases is different than judging the worth of art or science.
That said, who's to say what level of lying (humorous or not) is allowed in a commercial? I'm a reasonably intelligent person with a good sense of humor and Pepsi's commercial took me in for at least 1 second. That says to me that their attempt at humor was unwise at best and very dark gray at worst.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
If Pepsi intended this as a joke, they should either have had an asterisk and an explicit disclaimer announcing this fact, or have made the number of pepsi points be something equivalent to the cost of a jet. If they had said "get a Harrier for only 250 million pepsi points" rather than a mere 7 million, they wouldn't have had this problem.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The temperature of the Mcdonalds coffee in question was 140 degrees farenheit. The manager had been keeping it at that temperature because it stayed fresh longer or some such silliness. The lady didn't deserve to win the lawsuit as she should have been more careful, but Mcdonalds was breaking policy by super heating their coffee.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I remember seeing this on TV. After the first airing of the commercial where the Harrier was 7m points, Pepsi changed subsequent airings of the commercial to say that the Harrier was in fact 700m points. So, they knew, (or suspected) that maybe some joker try to come up with 7m, so they upped it a little.
I guess the damage was done though...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Does this remind anyone of the Simpsons episode where Bart picks the elephant as his prize? Well, he got the elephant, maybe this bloke will get the jet! :-) I want my elephant I want my Harrier
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~
There are some overseas users of the MK II, but I can't find a listing of the UK being among them.
What's wrong with something for nothing? What about the X-10 promotion. They gave us like an $80 kit for next to nothing!
$23,000,000 / $700,000 ~= 32
$80 / $4 = 20
that's not so different is it?
(I don't know what shipping was for the x-10... I put $4... could be more or less *shrug*)
Up until the latter part of the 20th Century, the rule has been: "Whoever controls the land, owns the land." This meant that if Country B was on land that Country A wanted, all Country A had to do was forcibly remove Country B from that land and presto, that land belongs to Country A. Unfortunately, today we seem to have some ludicrous notion of "fairness," and now the rule is: "Whoever is on the land, owns the land." You can't forcibly remove someone from land in order to take it, because using force is "wrong." : )
If we're going to go by the old rule, nobody owns the moon. Although the US has the best claim since its the only one to ever go there. But sinse we don't actually maintain control of any territory there backed by military force, we can't really say any of it is "ours". I guess we could just say "The moon is ours and we will consider any voyage to the moon by another country an invasion of American territory." This would be acceptable under the old rule sinse we have planted our flag there, and no one else has.
If we're going to go by the new rule, nobody owns the moon. Probably what would happen would be the moon would be considered international and corporations would just be responsible for maintaining their own land there.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Coca Cola has *nothing* to do with this!
Learn to read!
I think he should win.
If pepsi is stupid enough to offer it, they should be willing to own up to their responsibilities.
Pepsi was counting on people being so stupid that they would never have thought about actually trying for the jet.
Advertising is one thing, but playing on the 'moo-ish' people out there is just ignorant.
Smart/creative people should be rewarded, not punished.
Just MHO.
When this lawsuit first came up, some friends and I discused what Pepsi should have done rather than fight this out in court: give him the jet.
No, not a real Harrier Jump Jet, but the model of a Harrier Jump Jet that was used in the filming of the commercial. You think they used a -real- Harrier? Not likely. At most, it was a $30,000 scale model built for the commercial.
Pepsi should have offered to give him that model for his $700,000. No lawsuit, as he is getting exactly what was in the commercial for 7 million points.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
Well it is a capitalist country, what do you expect?
I don't see what's so unreasonable about it... sure, jets are expensive, but the guy had to get seven million points for it. Anyone that dedicated deserves the thing. If Pepsi didn't want to give away a Harrier, they shouldn't have offered one. If I was them, I'd get him the jet and write it off as an advertising expense... I know if they did, I'd be buying all the Pepsi I could get my hands on next time they offered to give away a Harrier... I really want a Harrier. They rock.
How much does a Harrier cost, anyway? And what's Pepsi's annual net?
Hmmmm. Charity? How does one choose which? (Matching funds?)
Random ideas --
* Let the funds go directly to the local/state/or Federal treasury, with one provo: if their exists a government debt, it *must* go towards reducing it.
* Or, allow a reduction in the punitive-damage award if the amount is clearly applied to solving whatever problem existed. In this case, this might be finding a way to build safer high-temperature beverage containers, or perhaps working with auto manufacturers to encourage cup-holders, or anything like that. Far more difficult, because now somebody has to rule on relevance.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I was really rooting for that guy. stupid judge.
I agree. Alas, much of the legislation that required truth in advertising was repealed back in the 1980s. It will be interesting to see what happens if this guy appeals, though.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Why would Saab have any trouble getting ahold of one of their products to use in an ad for another one of their products?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"Yea I guess we should let advertisers say pretty much anything, and then pull the "just kidding" when they have to pay up. Then we could get marketers selling all sorts of wondrous things by saying "It's faster, more stable, plays more games, and works better" when in fact they are selling smoke and mirrors."
Well sure, that's the way the software world works but we're talking sodas here.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yes, the week after that commercial aired, Pepsi realized they screwed up. They pulled the commercial and changed it to something outragious like 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 points.
drinken? Cokeocola?
Methinks?!?!?!?!
No, you don't. Don't read much either by the looks of things...
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
It's not a military-grade weapon until it's armed. Until that point, it's just a jet aircraft. His main problem would be getting certification/type approval to fly the damn thing. Quite frankly, good luck to him. james ps contrary to some of the view that have been flying around here, the Harrier AV8-B which was offered is currently produced by McD-D under licence from British Aerospace.
Tally-ho, yippety-dip, and zing zang spillip. Looking forward to bullying off for the final chukka?
If Pepsi advertised that drinking Pepsi would prevent heart attacks, cancer, AIDS, and improve health in general while also being a perfect fuel to heat your home and power your car, would this be deceptive advertising or are we to assume that any resonable person would know this is obviously false ?
This decision clearly shows that corporate America can make any offer or claim without having to be responsible for the validity of it.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
So did the French Canadians.
The judge ruled that what you advertise is what you sell. The man was forced to part with the car for fruit.
The moral of the story? Jokes in advertising are fine, but don't put them in the price tag.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I saw that commercial years ago and am shocked that people on Slashdot would actually side with the kid. Some arguments were "Pepsi didn't say it was a joke" or "Its the kids right".
Whether Pepsi was wrong or not, the kid should not have a military-grade weapon. Pepsi probably couldn't even get a Harrier. Any right-thinking individual would know it was a joke. Anyone that would think otherwise is too impressionable to be watching television.
To say the kid should get a jet is saying "Lets have the Government decide what constitutes our sense of humor."
-Clump
The clear move to me, would have been for the government to hit pepsi up for about 5,000 harriers. at this bargain basement price of $700,000. Think about it, it would cut the hell out of military spending, and the courts would put it through...Maybe they could even sell them off to foreign nations and make something on it...
If Pepsi settled with these guys and gave them a profit, some other bozo would come up with 700 grand to try to do the same thing.
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Ok here goes my $.02.
I'm pretty tired of companies advertising things they do not intend to deliver.
I knew it was a silly marketing ploy as well as this guy did.
The fact remains that they showed a very expensive mockup of a harrier
(the one seen in the movie "True Lies", I believe). And they went to great
expense to use the same effects to make it look real. If they said you can
get "A" harrier then he should be sold a "real" harrier costs be damned and
they (nor any other company) will EVER make that mistake again.
If on the other hand, they said you can get "THIS" harrier he should be given
the mockup and the support equipment that is required to operate it as seen
in the commercial. After all I bet the pepsi jacket is exactly like the ones seen
in the ad. I think it is reasonable to assume that if you have the required points
to get a prize you should get the exact prize shown in the add.
Can the Lottery Commission say who would ever believe we would ever give
anyone 75 million just for buying one ticket, can they say they were kidding,
or instead pay off in Monopoly money?
Also there is cause and effect here and it plays on many levels, bare with me here......
Cause: Pepsi makes a commercial and a promotional offer.
Effect: Guy sees said ad, and proceeds to attempt to jump through the required hoops to get the prize he wanted.
Would the guy have done what he did (raising the money to get the item he wanted) had he NOT seen the ad? I think not.
Did Pepsi think all people would ignore the promotion and it's prizes. No. Otherwise they would never have done it in the first place.
Cause: Guy manages to jump the hoops as required.
Effect: Pepsi changes the prize price because now they fear they may (rightly so) be required to pay off.
America bought it when uncle George said "read my lips, No New Taxes."
Yes they should have known better but it didn't save his ass in the next election. Did it?
If Pepsi thought they were not liable to have to settle up,
why change the commercial later to make the price higher?
When they did change the price of the harrier, did they do it because it wasn't high enough
to be to totally unbelievable (it wasn't so high as to be an obvious joke), or was it to make
the cost just high enough to keep it out of the contestant's reach (a kind of bait and switch scam)
( or specifically make it more difficult for the man to win the prize they never had in the first place).
Cause: Guy shows up with the required promo points (he bought them but I don't think that is an issue).
Effect: Pepsi says " your kidding right, because we were kidding"
I suspect this will be what happens to lots of social security applicants in a few years. Should the Gov. get away with it?
End effect ?
I say coporate language and the media has been milking us sheep covertly and on the sly this way for too long already.
Didn't anyone here ever buy X-ray Specks as a kid? I did and was pretty disillusioned when I found I'd been had.
They hadn't broken any laws because I had received what they sent, I should have known better right?
Then I Find out Santa is a sham and the tooth fairy, and the great pumpkin. Is it any wonder we hate and suspect everything?
I say if pepsi wont give the guy what he worked for, then they should pay him off for all the points he earned
as a refund in the price of the drinks he would have purchased, not the price of the points,
but the cost it would have been to buy that much of their crappy beverage.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
Pepsi offered the plane in a commercial for 7,000,000 pepsi points with no disclaimer saying it wasn't really available. What he figured was that if he got the Pepsi points, he could then take Pepsi to court for not giving him the plane.
Commercials imply alot of things, but this commercial didn't imply that he could get a Harrier, it said he would get a Harrier. If a company said "Wear these shoes and play in the NBA," then yes, you could sue. But companies never say that. They imply it by using hiring NBA players to wear their shoes, and saying things like "These shoes let (insert name of basketball player) compete in the NBA."
Basically, he called Pepsi bluff. Personally, I think he should get the plane (or more likely it's monetary value).
Well, that explains a TV commercial that had a Saab Viggen fighter in it. I was wondering how the heck the RSwAF got into the ad business.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Where does it say in a beer comercial that you will have sex if you drink this beer??
It implies that, but it doesn't say that.
Agree with it or not, everything remotely elite in the military (officer training, specialist units, et c.) incorporates a strong, if unofficial, policy of hazing to increase mental toughness and deny access to oversensitive or mentally weak individuals.
If a person can't stand up to minor physical and psychological abuse, they can't be trusted in battle. There is usually a relatively large recruit pool and the first task (for efficiency's sake; so no training resources are wasted) is weeding out the undesirables.
I believe the word "methinks" appears in a play by William Shakespeare! Though I don't think the Bard ever used "drinken" or "Cokeocola".
Hey all,
;)" to "Why should the greedy, money-grabbing man make life worse for us"
I personally havn't seen the advert, but going by the CNN description the bloke must be pretty stupid to do it in which cash he should be forgiven. However in recent years the stupidity of people is getting, ironically, stupid.
For example, do we really need to be told that food cooked in the microwave is going to be hot... doesn't the definitipon of cooking imply that ?
Warning : Do not use hairdryer in shower.
Warning : Do not insert fingers into blender.
How more times do we have to put up with these phrases ? Whilst I do not consider myself to be of a superior intelligence I can figure out the odd maths question and write essays... averaged school stuff you might say.
However lets assume that this man is not of the stupid variety. Instead he has maken a bit of money and thinks that he has seen a golden oppertunity to make more. How ? Sue Pepsi for non-delivery of an advertised product. Mmm it could work, couln'd it ? And it would certainly help out with the bank loan.
So perhaps the question should change from "Why do we have to put up with stupid people (that sounds nasty... sorry
Warning : Do not use hairdryer in shower, because we know if you do then you will sue us (or maybe your family... *doh*) for lots and lots of money and we won't have a leg to stand on.
I read a while back about a man who had drunk so much at a bar that he fell of his stool and broke his pelvis, also severing the bottom part of his spinal column. He was left paralysed from the waist down. However, he took the nasty, evil, money making bar landlord to court because it certainly wasn't his own fault that he had drunk too much. Oh no, the barman has in fact *forced* him to keep drinking. He tried to go but couldn't.
Ok I'm attempting to drip a little sarcasm in, but the paralysed man won the case.
What kind of a world does this mean we live in ?
But when I saw this commercial I did think for a split-second "I can win a jet?" The reason I thought this was that 7 million points seemed like an awful lot--I figured that if someone was actually able to get that many, maybe Pepsi had something up their sleeve.
As someone else has noted, when did reasonability become the criterion for legality? In a world where people can win lawsuits against peanut packaging firms because there is no warning about eating the shells, a company that says "you can win a jet" with a straight face has to be taken seriously. This is particularly the case with a well-heeled company like Pepsi that concievably really give a jet to the winner.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
We buy 'em overseas. Specifically, They're british.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Last I checked making false claimes in advertising is called "FALSE ADVERTISING". There is a reason for some laws ( No I don't agree with all of them ). It is to protect the average person from whatever/whoevever. There is regulation on false advertising to protect joe blow from Megacorp...If you have to give away junk to get people to drink your soda thats fine...but don't lie to people. And if you DO then suffer...and pay out 23 M for the jump jet shut your piehole and don't offer a damn jet again.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
He may have planned to re-sell the jet. Imagine an auction with a Harrier starting at $1,000,000US.
There'd be people from all over the globe trying to jump in on that one.
Also, who says that he wasn't planning to rent it out? "Pay me $10,000US per day and you buy your own fuel, and provide your own pilot and you get to use a Harrier in your move like in 'True lies'."
Pepsi advertised it without any Caveats. No little *"Harrier not actually offered."
Those clearinghouse joints that offer prizes of 10 MILLION dollars would be in deep doodoo if they were to sand someone a notice saying "You have just won 1 QUADRILLION DOLLARS, but it will be paid in $10 per year increments for the next 100 trillion years.
This is bullshit, if there is no disclaimer, they should have to pay!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sigh. Another reason you should not watch TV. False advertising. I think Pepsi should lose this one. There are disclaimers on *everything* these days. If Pepsi was too lazy to put one in their contest rules, they should be held liable. They made a contract with this person - now they're trying to get out? The moral of this story is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
That was one of the coolest post I have ever seen.
A large amount of American law relies on English precedents. One of the classic English precedents involved the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in the late 19th Century. They offered £100 to anyone who caught a cold after using their smoke balls, and to back up their ad, they placed some money on deposit in a bank.
Anyway, someone used their product, caught a cold, and asked for the £100. The case went to court and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. was forced to cough up. The essential reasons for the decision were:
a) the claimant had seen the advert and was relying on the offer when she bought the smoke balls. [True in the Pepsi case]
b) the Company had shown they were serious by putting money to cover any claims in a bank.
In the Pepsi case, Pepsi did NOT [presumably] go out and buy a Harrier to cover their potential liability. This fact might protect them under English law. HOWEVER, presumably, if Pepsi run out of stock of the other goods on offer, they would still honour the promise by going out and restocking. It could be argued that Pepsi just are maintaining a minimum stock level of zero on Harrier jump jets ["Just in Time" ordering]
As a number of people have pointed out, it is not unreasonable to expect a large "return" from a small investment - happens every day in Lotteries and other competitions [also in auctions, if there is no reserve price you can pick up something for much less than its value]. Also the effective price [$700,000] is a serious amount of money and could be used to show that Pepsi were serious about their offer. In another context, if he had actually collected the real points instead of buying them, it could be argued that his effort had value equivalent to the remainder of the price.
Are there any US lawyers/ law students reading this column. I'd love to know if it could be made to run under US law. I'm sure that after requiring Pepsi to deliver one could secure at least a cash alternative.
Even if the product is not available due to restrictions at the present time does not mean that Pepsi could be forced to honour the commitment as soon as it became legal to operate a Harrier jet as a civilian.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Tell me why is getting a pack of memorex CD-r free after rebate is more reasonable than getting a 23 million plane for a few million worth of merchindise.
CY
Now, that's not to say he couldn't sue them for the discrepency between the advertisements and the Official Rules, but the liability of PepsiCo in that case is quite a bit smaller.
jaz
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Since the first time I read this years a go I thought that PEPSI should give the man the MOCKUP they used for the ad. It is what thay showed with the sigh saying 700,000 points.
Of course it may be that he is being payed by PEPSI to keep the story and PEPSI's name in the public eye.
Have Fun
On the one hand, I agree that no reasonable person could expect delivery of the jet since it's restricted military hardware.
On the other hand, I'm getting very tired of the hyperbole in current ads. It seems that the current cycle of hyperbole started with the Pepsi ad promising a Harrier jet.
I also think that the fact that the prize was a Harrier jet has muddled the judge's thinking. To draw an analogy, consider a Taco Bell ad that promised 10 tacos for $5, 100 tacos for $30, and 100,000 tacos for $1000. No reasonable person would ever buy 100k tacos, right? Wrong; it could be used as a promotion on large college campuses. (Free tacos for everyone if you come by our kiosk for information on time-share long distance calling!)
So, while I think the first guy was a bit opportunistic, I hope that he wins the cash equivalence just so the ad agencies will be more careful about making "just possible" claims. As countless other people have pointed out, Pepsi could have chosen a different point value of the jet -- and in fact later ads did show a much higher point value.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Two possibilities that I can think of right now:
1: He considered the commercial a violation of truth in advertising and wanted to stop them. What better way then this?
2: He just wanted to bully the Big Corporate Empire into giving him money or an expensive airplane.
In many countries the nations military sells old surplus items - guns, jeeps, even tanks and planes. These items are made disfunctional weaponswise (e.g. the bolt from storm rifles is removed, so it can't shoot anymore). But apart from that they're fully functional.
Why shouldn't Pepsi acquire an old military plane for this guy? Why does this seem sooo unreasonable?
Somewhere here in canton Bern (Switzerland) there's a guy that has a disfunctional F14 (or was it F16) standing around in his garden. I saw a report once about Brits who spend weekends driving through the wilderness with ex-military tanks.
And I don't think that either one of them spent a million US$ for these.
Personally, I'd continue the lawsuit to the next higher court (maybe collecting some data about other countries military habits when getting rid of their old equipment).
But, I'm curious, since I haven't seen the commercial in question. But did the jet fly in this commercial, or was it just standing on the ground. Standing on the ground should be somewhat easy to achieve, as I guess, even the military people will charge more than US$1.000.000 if the thing can still fly. If it was standing on the ground, than it should be possible to get a real but no longer functional (i.e. no longer able to fly) jet...
From the little I know about this court, this lawsuits outcome seems to fit well into what we here about US lawsuits in Europe...
Right. No "objective person" would believe that they had won the Publisher's Clearinghouse jackpot after receiving bulk-rate junk mail with a lot of "if's" in it either, but PC got sued and changed some tactics. I don't know the outcome of the suit, but this one is different. They literally said exactly how many points it takes to win a Harrier. The point total, being a very large number, was intended to sound real.
This sounds like a simple case of Marketroid screw-up followed by Lawyerbot cover-up.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
And coke can refill all those 7million cans of pepsi to coke bottoms. Billion idea.
CY
Yes, it was in the commercial, but it was not only presented in a completely different manner, but it wasn't in the catalog. The Pepsi catalog was like the Pepsi Points Bible -- if it wasn't there, they weren't selling it. If some moron is too dumb to recognize that, they need a good healthy dose of electro-shock therapy.
Even if he wins this, there's no way he'll ever get the jet -- they already explained that way back when this first occurred. You simply can't purchase a jet that's in active military use.
And I thought that woman suing McDonalds for her idiocy in spilling hot (wow, coffee is hot?) coffee on her lap. Unless she asked for an iced coffee, I don't see how any reasonable person could think coffee wouldn't be hot. The fact that she won was just plain appalling. I sincerely hope this guy doesn't win if he actually gets to appeal.
Hey, if he gets the Harrier, maybe he'll end up in next year's Darwin Awards, though. ;o) See, there's an upside to everything!
Sure! Just like Microsoft can advertise that their software belongs in the data center!
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
That's probably what's next. "Hey, I wanted a blue dot, not this stupid money!"
What is society coming to? And we're supposed to be proud to be Americans?
You are probably thinking about (http://www.dm.af.mil/dmhist.htm) Davis-Monthan AFB, Az. Old Air Force planes go there when they are no longer usable, to be processed and destroyed. Valuable metals and components containing potentially environmentally hazardous chemicals are removed from the aircraft, which are then left to rust in the desert. For an aero type, this is the single most depressing place on earth; hundreds of huge, decaying hulks of once beautiful aircraft now abused by the wind and the sun...
The movies "Marlboro man"??? and "terminal velocity"??? (I am not sure about these names) both climax in the airplane graveyard.
Anyway, a harrier would not be sent there unless it was unflyable. In a stripped-down condition, it would barely be worth $700,000--though it would make a very nice lawn ornament... 'specially here in tennessee...
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
I am an ex-caffeen adict and before I quit (I drank diet-coke) I was upto 10L a day. That is equivilant to about 28cans. Now take me and a small town, city of about 100,000 people. In one day thats 2.8 million cans. Therefore it would take just under 3 days. Now take a large city with say 10million people and book a large stadium for 4 days. say it holds 70,000 people. if you fill it, say get a band or two. All of them buy pepsi. You could get 7,000,000 points with ease. just a theory :)
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Howcome americans insist on putting disclaimers on ;-) In most other contries people don't even attempt these kinds of lawsuits because the jugde will laugh them out of the courtroom.
everything? Oh, that's right, your legal system sucks!
I wonder how ordinary americans perceive these things?
Are million dollar law suits a Good Thing for "real" cases?
Do you people really think it's reasonable that companies should people who hurt themselves because the act stupid? McDonalds and the coffee woman comes to mind!
Also, I've heard that the instruction manual to cars include driving instructions, so the company wont get sued because some jerk drives his car into a wall and sues the shit of them, because he really thought the car could do that
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
we've been over this before.
there is no such thing as expresso.
it's espresso,
and any true coffee addict^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrinker should know that.
-Tannin Kal
a RIDE home in the Harrier.
just one more example of how much Madison Avenue runs this illusion we think of as LIFE. It's about time more people started taking these marketers to task when they really cross the line of "truth in advertising"(an oxymoron). It's all about creating the illusion of choice anyway... and television is such a passive medium that, as one post already mentioned, the company assumed everybody would be too stupid to follow up on the offer. Anybody that watches TV should be compensated.
------------
Does anyone else remember that this was Clinton's first choice for Attorney General, before Janet Reno?
The cake is a pie
This a-hole should be thrown in jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Just another d*ckhead showing how low the intelligence has sunk in this god-forsaken country. The judge should've tossed a heavy Bible at his head. Makes you wonder about Generation Y. The USAF should drop a bomb from a Harrier onto this moron's house.
And to all of you idiots crying for Pepsi's head for "false advertising," buy a clue already.It amazes me how many people think they should get things for nothing...
I thought this was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard since it all began a few years ago, and it's no different now.
A lot of you have raised a lot of good points, but the one thing every post I've read has missed is The Catalog. If something wasn't in the Pepsi Points Catalog, it wasn't for sale. The Harrier (surprise, surprise) wasn't in the catalog. Thus, it's not for sale.
This isn't to say that the rest of the reasons set forth aren't valid, namely the "restricted military aircraft aren't available to civilians" reason, but to have someone who tries to order an item that's not in the catalog? You had to give the item number to order, and the last time I checked, there was no picture of a Harrier with a big, bold item number next to it.
However, to actually reach the section of this where it got its title...
People like this guy will kill themselves off without our help if we just let them. It's like Darwin said, survival of the fittest. People who are stupid enough to be taken in by an obvious joke, too stupid to realize coffee is going to be hot, or that hitting yourself with a hammer is going to hurt, or that shooting someone generally maims or kills them (do I really need to continue listing other thought processes that require a total lack of brain cells?) need to just be left alone. One of these days, they'll do something even more stupid than the usual, and end up dead somewhere.
Darwin's probably rolling over in his grave as we all write about this. If this guy does end up getting money out of Pepsi from his appeal (which I hope he doesn't, because the only money he needs is enough to get a whole lot of counseling, and maybe some electro-shock therapy), I bet he'll go buy himself a plane. Then, maybe he'll be like other people and not get instrument certified, go flying someday, and find that visual flying isn't possible. Anyone with the IQ of a lower monkey could read instruments, but people like this have an IQ more like that of a banana slug, and as such he'll end up crashing. Now just imagine how much bigger and better the resulting fireball would be if it had been a multi-million dollar Harrier.
End of Comment.
or maybe the guy was a looser wanting to sue someone
With the continual issues on Point redeemer promotions why is it that Pepsi shouldn't be required to present this fool a single $700,000 Harrier Jump Jet (if this means they need to remove all interior items so be it). My main concern here: The fact is that they allowed a single indivdual to purchase points in thier contest of well over a resonable level of points for a monetary exchange, this is quite frankly rediculous. This should have be the basis of legal fault on Pepsi Co.'s part and any other company that offers a point redeemer prize contest.
We all know there are more stupid people than smart people and this is a case of a smart-assed person not a stupid one. But think about it for a second and ask yourself if you would allow your lung chugging relative any lee-way in his/her ideal of buying more of them points to get a pool table instead of actually finding a pool table dealer to buy one for less money, cancer risk etc..
Just say no... Oh and drink Coke People !?!?
"If there's a new way I'll be the first in line.... But It better work this time." Vic Rattlehead
However, I'd like to reiterate what I've read in other comments:
IMHO, I think the guy should be able to get his jet. I realize the ridiculous nature of the instance that he own the thing, but I also realize that, they did advertise it, and if he has met the qualifications, he should get it. It'll teach Pepsi to stop being so foolish, and hopefully other corporations will learn too. If he is restricted from obtaining such a vehicle/item, I think that some sort of prize/compensation be awarded him (although, seemingly contrary to the thought carried by this comment, I don't think he needs to be award the $73M [yes, I realize that, if he gets the jet, he'll have it anyway], b/c I don't think anyone needs $73M [yes, I also realize that many in this world have much more than $73M])
Insert mind here.
It seems like there are some people who haven't seen the commercial and don't know the circumstances, or are just plain confused.
The comercial aired. A week later, Pepsi realized they screwed up and pulled the comercial.
This guy had a tape of the commercial, talked with his lawyers, and found investors. His plan, ostensibly, was to book rides on the thing. The 700,000 wasn't to buy lots of cans of Pepsi, they actually sold points for 10 cents a piece.
IMHO, this guy is not stupid. Pepsi (before this guy had his 700,000 dollars) realized they'd fucked up and pulled the commercial.
I feel that too many of you out there responded with "he is a stupid kid" type reactions.
The question is not "is this kid responsible?", it is also not a "what would he do with a military jet?", nor "could anyoune really believe that particular commercial?"
The real question is: SHOULD A COMPANY STAND BEHIND THEIR COMERCIALS, OR CAN THEY JUST CLAIM ANYTHING AND WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT ???
If one lets the Pepsi go with this one, that may be a precedence for other cases where company sets a claim in their advertisements with absolutely no intention to stand behind it. So, now we have: "Do this and you will get a military jet" claim, finishing in "just a joke". What's next?
This car can stand a 100km/h hit with no scratches (just a joke - post mortem)
You can safely glue your dogs chain to the house with this glue (just a joke - tell it to the postmans testacles)
This rope is strong enough to hold a tytanic (just a joke, and your $$$ jacht is gone)
When I think of it, quite a lot of the advertisments are obvious fakes - anti cellulyte "wonders" beeing advertised by 19-years old girls, detergents miraculously washing everything at -20 C, while your angora pully does not show any signs of wearing off after 10000 washing cycles, "head&shoulders" shampoos (hey, I should know!)... These guys should pay for it oneday - the sooner the better.
As for the joke - I don't think it is funny.
The guy did spend $700,000 getting all the needed "points." The McLaren F1 road driving version is worth about $866,000 (Wired 7.05 - 50 Ways to Spend a Lot of Money). That's a more reasonable return on investment than the $23 mil Harrier.
Dude, but it's not restricted. Demilitarized Harriers can and have been sold to the public.
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
I feel that too many of you out there responded with "he is a stupid kid" type reactions.
The question is not "is this kid responsible?", it is also not a "what would he do with a military jet?", nor "could anyoune really believe that particular commercial?"
The real question is: SHOULD A COMPANY STAND BEHIND THEIR COMERCIALS, OR CAN THEY JUST CLAIM ANY SHIT AND WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT ???
If one lets the Pepsi go with this one, that may be a precedence for other cases where company sets a claim in their advertisements with absolutely no intention to stand behind it. So, now we have: "Do this and you will get a military jet" claim, finishing in "just a joke". What's next?
This car can stand a 100km/h hit with no scratches (just a joke - post mortem)
You can safely glue your dogs chain to the house with this glue (just a joke - tell it to the postmans testacles)
This rope is strong enough to hold a titanic (just a joke, and your $$$ yacht is gone)
When I think of it, quite a lot of the advertisments are obvious fakes - anti cellulyte "wonders" beeing advertised by 19-years old girls, detergents miraculously washing everything at -20 C, while your angora pully does not show any signs of wearing off after 10000 washing cycles, "head&shoulders" shampoos (hey, I should know!)... These guys should pay for it oneday - the sooner the better.
As for the joke - I don't think it is funny.
IIRC they raised the number of points required and added the "Just Kidding!" after this guy sent in his points.
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Take Nintendo for example. I was looking at the box for the game Pokémon Snap. As you can see, the box features the lens of the camera with various game characters around it. If you look at the back of the box, you'll see a disclaimer: "This is a game pak, not a camera".
Well, DUH.
Great... you people who keep crying "Pepsi should have to pay!" are really getting on my nerves for the following reasons:
1) Companies have a right to use humour in their commercials. Pepsi hats, jackets, bags, skateboards, etc are OBVIOUSLY not the on the same level as a FREAKIN JET. Any moron can see that. Yes. ANY MORON.
2) You people are the reason people who make pet shampoo have to put warning like "Don't microwave pet to dry" and their bottles. "But it didn't say!" Hey! I got this knife, and it didn't say not to stab anyone! I'm gonna sue!
3) You're supporting frivolous law suits. This man KNEW it was a joke. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that he thought he was going to get the plane? Hell no, he even raised money for the law suit BEFORE TRYING TO GET THE PLANE!
4) If you guys had your way every comedian would have to stop at the end of each joke and explain that it was just a joke.
5) I'm going to go sue segfault for their articles!!! Who cares if they're obviously bogus, I'm too stupid to realize it!
6) The taco bell comercial where the dog is having a lawn sale where everything is $.39.... I mailed in $.39 for the Baby Grand piano.. I didn't get it!! LAWYER!!!
I'm not trying to be overly rude here, but I'm really upset that this many people are THAT stupid. I saw they settle by taking him on a ride in a harrier... just tie him to the back of the engine...
Right. Even if this guy was allowed to fly it, just the cost of fuel alone would be several thousand dollars an hour. Add to that the cost of routine maintenance: the tools and equipment, the facilities, the people, training, etc. Plus you've got to buy or lease a hangar somewhere to store the darn thing, and register it with 10e6 different agencies, file flight plans, keep meticulous maintenance reports..... the cost of *owning* a fancy airplane usually makes the cost of buying one seem like a relative bargain. And even if such a financial feat was actualy possible, the FAA forbids all civilian flights from exceeding M1.0. What fun is that?
You go nail 'em boy!!! It's about time these scumbags quit offering stuff that they ain't going to back up. I got ripped off buying a hoover in their free-flights scam. More fool me for believing a big corporations line.
A $23M jet for $700,000. I'm sure that the IRS would be all over him for that especially if it's considered a prize.
Even still, I'm sure that he would not be able to afford to fly the thing, with fuel, maintanence, what not.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
This all started with those "Joe Isuzu" commericals ten or so years ago. Obviously no one was to believe that the Isuzu whatever could outrun a bullet, or came with a sattelite dish. And really, there should be a "reasonableness" clause for such things.
Pepsi was just stupid in the amount they chose, though I suspect there are laws against private citizens owning jumpjets. And one wonders why this guy didn't call Pepsi and check it out before plunking down the $700,000...
I am also reminded of the fiasco in the Philipines where either coke or pepsi ran a contest and accidentally printed something like 100,000 winning entries. (The prize was a million dollars, or somesuch.)
The cake is a pie
I just want to know when the Camry became a "real cool car".
WARNING: THIS IS A JOKE
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
That's why Microsoft gets away with calling NT an Secure, Stable, Scalable Enterprise Solution. I understand now.
Disclaimer: these views are mine. I am not a lawyer. I don't care about laws, I care about common sense.
:)
pepsi is not people, it is a company. lotsa lawyers. they advertised the harrier thing for umpteen points, bottlecaps, whatever. If they didn't want to give away a VTOL jet, don't offer it. They did. I say make'em give the guy a harrier, or make'em pay. NOT letting pepsi pay would give any company the opportunity to advertise whatever they want, without anyone being able to hold them to it, which I think wqould be quite an injustice. Oh well.. I don't have a say in the matter anyway
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
he's not underaged any more, his parents don't have anything to do with it.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Just kidding of course. No reasonable objective
person would believe that.
But I get to keep the 1-900 charges if any
SUKRs call, right?
What if it only said $10000 or $100 ?
How unbelieveable does it have to be?
If this sets a legal precedent it opens
a world of opportunity for scam artists.
What gives here? Pepsi said they would come up with a Harrier if the guy bought enough pepsi. He held up his side of the agreement. Pepsi backing out is paramount to Fraud.
If Pepsi can claim, what reasonable person would have believed we could actually deliever what we advertise, then what is to stop Intel from selling a PIII 1 Ghz that can only run at 233 Mhz? They could come back and say, who really believes a computer can go 1 Ghz.
I don't like marketers who fluff. It is not always possible to tell what is fluff and what is real. Everytime a marketer makes a claim or a promise they can not hold up to, they should lose money, or even thier job.
But that is only my thought. Yours is probably different.
Quack
No matter how much money someone has, they can't just walk into Walmart and buy a freakin' Jet. It's not a consumer-level product. So should Pepsi have to pay him the amount that it would cost to buy a Harrier? No, this is stupid. If you're smart enough to raise that kind of money and deal with investors and such, then you're smart enough to know that the commercial was bogus. No one with any modicum of intelligence would legitimately believe that they could get a fighter jet from Pepsi. Is this the kind of society we live in today, where companies have sacrifice anything but dead-facts in their ads to save their asses in court??
------
I've seen a documentary where people had bought enough parts to build complete Cobra attack helicopters and such - they could even buy the missile mounts and other stuff that are supposed to be destroyed, not sold.
/El Niño
nope, have to agree with you. nobody needs artillery. On the other hand it is ofcourse a necessity to have a gun in your house.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
First off, if you're going to reply, at least don't misquote me.
And this looks to me life a typical American example of racism.
My post was:
And this looks to me like a typical American example of racism
Second, you were maligning the American race. Is it typical for Americans to be greedy and stupid? Is it typical for Germans to be sadistic? Is it typical for Kosovar to kill one another? Is it typical for Italians to be mobsters? Shit, I can think of about a million stereotypes. But, I'm a typical stupid American, aren't I?
-- Terry
If you point out any individual American to me, I can't tell you whether or not he might be greedy and stupid. However, the country as a whole appears to me to be an environment that encourages greed and stupidity, and a fair number of my fellow Americans appear to agree with me. Personally, I find being here somewhat frightening; it's a lot closer to being a fascist state than Canada, where I've spent most of my life. (It seems odd that an essentially socialist country did a much better job of protecting my privacy than what some see as `the land of the free.') The major redeeming quality (and what keeps the US from going right over the edge) is the toleration of vocal dissent. But even free speech is under continual fire here.
Perhaps if I felt more American, I'd be working harder to fight these things. As it is, I just feel like fleeing.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
If I remember the commercial correctly, the Harrier has hovering a few feet over a lawn.
The "Av8B" is the US version of the harrier is built under license from British Aerospace, and still uses the Rolls Royce Pegasus engine (its the only jet engine with 4 fully vectorable nozzels) British Areospace collaborated with McDonnell Douglas on the Harrier2/AV8B upgrade from the original Harrier. The harrier2 is also manufactured in the UK by British Areospace in various versions (including the Sea Harrier used by the Royal navy)
1) Companies have a right to use humour in their commercials. Pepsi hats, jackets, bags, skateboards, etc are OBVIOUSLY not the on the same level as a FREAKIN JET. Any moron can see that. Yes. ANY MORON.
Well, yes, except this wasn't simply a commercial. It was a promotion with points redemable for prizes. The laws tend to be strict in such cases to make it difficult for the company to say, "we were kidding". The underlying principle here is that the expense of a disclaimer in such a case is trivial to the overall cost of the promotion, so why not the disclaimer?
2) You people are the reason people who make pet shampoo have to put warning like "Don't microwave pet to dry" and their bottles. "But it didn't say!" Hey! I got this knife, and it didn't say not to stab anyone! I'm gonna sue!
Again, the purpose of a promotion is to give things away or offered in redemption for some premium. It is reasonable the presume that the things depicted as being given away actually will be. It would not be reasonable to presume that one could actually FLY the jet.
3) You're supporting frivolous law suits. This man KNEW it was a joke. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that he thought he was going to get the plane? Hell no, he even raised money for the law suit BEFORE TRYING TO GET THE PLANE!
Here,you may have a point. If Pepsico can show that he THOUGHT it was a joke, they can call him on it. However, I see nothing wrong in raising money for a suit to collect something that Pepsico could reasonably be expected to DENY having offered. This is not the same as thinking it was a joke, just an error in Pepsico's judgement.
4) If you guys had your way every comedian would have to stop at the end of each joke and explain that it was just a joke.
No, clearly from context, one knows that comedians in a club or on TV are telling jokes and are not to be taken seriously.
5) I'm going to go sue segfault for their articles!!! Who cares if they're obviously bogus, I'm too stupid to realize it!
Except they're not offering you anything. Pepsico was.
6) The taco bell comercial where the dog is having a lawn sale where everything is $.39.... I mailed in $.39 for the Baby Grand piano.. I didn't get it!! LAWYER!!!
Here there is a depiction of a lawn sale, but no indication that it is open to YOU.
Obviously I think Pepsico goofed on this one, and should cough up the valye of the Jet, if they can't produce the jet itself.
Oh, and regarding the lady who was too "stupid" to know not to hold a cup of coffee between her legs in a moving car... apparantly she first tried to collect medical expenses, and when McD brushed her off she sued on the grounds that the coffee was too hot to consume. Apparantly, in the state where the event took place, food and beverages sold in a restaurant must be fit for immediate consumption, and had this been the case, here burns would not have been so severe. Perhaps she was willing to risk a minor burn, but not 3rd degree burns.
In Liberty, Rene
I am going to preface this by saying I am not a Lawyer, so, if I am incorrect, anyone who knows what they are talking about can feel free to correct me. However, it is my understanding of the law that it is based to a large extent on the concept of a "reasonable" person.
For example, if I called you up and said, "I am going to give you $10,000,000." You could not successfully sue me if I then refused to pay you based on the fact that I made an oral contract with you because the contract was unreasonable: I didn't even ask for anything in return.
On the other hand, if I called you up and said, "I will give you $10,000,000 if you come over." You would have a case (you wouldn't necessarily win, though) because that is a more reasonable contract.
I'm not sure if that was the best example, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to law suits, you have to have a reasonable case. The funny thing is that the first time I saw that commercial like 5 years ago I said to myself, "Someone is going to get that many points and demand the Harrier Jet." Sure enough...
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Sure! Just like Microsoft can advertise that their software belongs in the data center!
Of course Microsoft software belongs in the data center. Put it on the machine that has all of the false copies of your data, as a tempting target. Would-be crackers may take all the false data they want from the Microsoft-possessed machine, while the real data is safely stored on an actual server.
He's not dumb at all. He saw the ad, saw the number of points, so NO disclaimer that this was a joke so he called them on it. I don't believe he really thought he'd get the jet but thought that he'd sue, and a big corporation like Pepsi would simply settle out of court for way more than the $700k he raised. And why would he not think this? This is the same legal system where a 69 year old idiot can scald herself with hot coffee and then successfully sue MacDonalds for millions because they didn't tell her the coffee was hot! (DUH!)
How many other frivoulous court cases like this happen in the American private law system?
This guy looked at what's been happening in the last 20 years and decided this was a good way to get cash out of a big corporation, because the US legal system seems to have taken any personal responsibility out of the law. Any pin-head can do something stupid (like putting the cruise control on in their RV and then LEAVE the driver's seat to go make breakfast - while the RV is driving down the highway!- they got in an accident, sued the RV company and won because it was the RV company's fault for not explaining that cruise control is not auto-pilot!) and successfully sue a company because they didn't warn them about the obvious. After all, its not my fault I didn't understand...I'm not responsible for my actions. Big companies are. They should make sure I can't hurt myself.
If the US had it so that the loser pays ALL legal fees(for BOTH the pliantiff and defendant), as they do here in Canada, there would be a lot less of these stupid laws suits.(Not to say that we don't have dumb lawsuit, we just have a lot less - you aren't likely to sue unless you think you have a really good chance of winning - how many US lawyers would counsel their clients NOT to file suit because they won't win? This happens all the time here).
Think of all the valueable court resources wasted on this kind of BS when cases like the Love Canal, Karen Silkwood, the Pinto and Tobacco suits need more attention and end up draggin on for years.
This guy should not only get nothing, I'd like to see him charged with fraud - defrauding his "investors" and attempting to extort the money from Pepsi. I commend Pepsi for standing up and not settling out of court, though I suspect the whole "truth in Advertising " thing may come back to haunt them.
Stuff like this is a perfect example of what happens when greed, fear and stupidity take the place of common sense in the courts and society.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha