 | | Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | (...) I think in that second case, the plaintiff is in the right-- if the implication was that the prize was a car, then using trickery to get the motivational results pursuant to offering a car as a performance incentive is completely dishonest. (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I agree--I'd be especially interested to learn if some sort of inter-office memo had circulated, because the spelling of "Toyota" in such a document would seem a clear implication of the nature of the prize. (...) In addition, I flatly (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner? —James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) I heard of one where the winner of a contest was promised the keys to a brand new Porshe...and got just that. (...) Who was the fellow? Was he an orderly or some maintenance fellow? james (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Frivolous lawsuits--a new winner? —A. Mark Wilburn
|
| | | | (...) IANAL, so what do I know, but I think you're right. It seems clear a car was implied (especially since they took her to the parking lot to receive it). (...) Sure, I agree here too, but I still think the "McDonald's hot coffee spilled on lap" (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
