NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/legal/20214

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 3.3 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Radio station won't pay off my prize
In-Reply-To: [e-mail] (Guido Marx)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nw12-326-1.mit.edu
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:02:42 GMT
Lines: 51


Mark Dubinsky reports that he won a small contest prize from a
California radio station, then 19 days later won $1,000 from the same
station.  Upon trying to collect, the station told him of their rule
that prohibits anyone from winning prizes more frequently than once
every 30 days, and refused to pay the $1,000 prize.  Mark now asks:

> Are they breaking any laws by not paying?  Any relevant cases that I
> should know about?  There was a case of a California Lottery
> contestant who was declared a winner of some big prize, and then the
> ball bounced into a smaller prize.  He sued the Lottery Commission
> and won, I think.  Does anyone remember that case?  I think it may
> be relevant to my situation.

Guido Marx reported:

> The lottery tried to argue that its rules clearly stated that the
> ball had to remain in the same slot for some period of time before
> that was considered to be the prize won.  This was true, that was in
> their rules.  However, the plaintiffs were able to show that the
> lottery routinely violated this rule (by examining video-tapes of
> other shows) and awarded prizes to other people before the ball had
> been in the slot for the specified period of time.  The court ruled
> that they couldn't selectively enforce the rules.  So, I would think
> that if you can find someone else who has won multiple prizes from
> the radio station within their 30-day limit, then you have got a
> good case.  I don't know how you would go about getting such
> information however.

Believe it or not, the best way to get this information might be to
ask them.  I'd unofficially advise you to first track down and get a
hard copy of the court's ruling in that California Lottery case.  Then
go to see whoever's representing the radio station in this matter,
show him that ruling, and, in as reasonable and non-confrontational a
manner as you can manage, say something like, "Okay, you and I both
know that _if_ your station has in the past been lax about enforcing
this 30-day rule, I'll eventually be able to find out about it.  It
might not be easy, and it'd almost certainly involve a lot of hassle
for both of us, but the truth _will_ come out.  So let's avoid a lot
of annoyance for both of us: does your station enforce this rule (a)
always, (b) often, (c) sometimes, (d) rarely or (e) never?"

You never know; the person you're dealing with might decide that
you're right about the potential hassles involved and just give you a
straight answer, even if it is one that hurt's the station's legal
position.  (Heck, they might even decide that it's worth paying you
the thousand dollars just to go away, though I wouldn't bet money on
that happening.)

-- William December Starr <[e-mail]>