What is an "American Baby"

The U.S. toymaker Toys R Us recently ran a competition whereby the "first American baby" born in 2007 would receive a $25,000 bond. The apparent winner was born in New York City at the stroke of midnight on January 1st. After naming the baby of Chinese immigrant Yan Zhu Liu as the winner, the company quickly revoked the prize claiming that the baby was not an "American baby" because the parents are not citizens or legal residents of the United States. The award was then given to a child in Georgia, whose parents were both "born and bred" Americans. A firestorm erupted as Chinese-American pressure groups cried foul. The company, sensing a public relations disaster, quickly reversed itself again and gave the $25,000 prize not only to Ms. Liu's child, but also allowed the child born in Georgia to keep its prize. The company even decided to give the award to a third child, whose parents are immigrants from El Salvador. Apparently, the fine print contained within the sweepstakes' rules limited winners to children born to American citizens or legal residents, but the large print simply said "American baby", raising some interesting contract interpretation questions. With our Common Law of Contract exam fast approaching, here is another question to ponder. Why is a competition like this one deemed an offer and not an invitation to treat?

Playing Chicken

The case of Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int’l Sales Corp, plays an important role in our discussion of contract interpretation (and the mistake defense) in Common Law of Contracts. Apparently, it's an important case for many American law school contracts courses as well. So important, legend has it, that one professor dresses up a chicken for the lecture. Urban legend? Myth? Apparently not. A post on the Contracts Prof Blog claims that there is living proof (pictures, which sadly are not included in the post) of a professor dressing up as chicken for the discussion of this case that begins with line, "What is a chicken."

Our Own Little Secret

The New Yorker magazine recently had a piece about how hotel and casino magnate Steve Wynn put his elbow with a Picasso painting that was worth $40 million. Thankfully for him he owned the painting. But he was in the process of selling it. There were already promises on the table from Wynn to sell and from the purchaser to buy. But that's not the interesting part of this article, as it's clear that the buyer would has a remedy to get out of the contract. Here is the interesting part:

A few hours later, they all met for dinner (Wynn and his friend who witnessed the accidental destruction of the painting), and Wynn was in a cheerful mood. “My feeling was, It’s a picture, it’s my picture, we’ll fix it. Nobody got sick or died. It’s a picture. It took Picasso five hours to paint it.” Mary Boies ordered a six-litre bottle of Bordeaux, and when it was empty she had everyone sign the label, to commemorate the calamitous afternoon. Wynn signed it “Mary, it’s all about scale—Steve.” Everyone had agreed to take what one participant called a “vow of silence.” (The vow lasted a week, until someone leaked the rudiments of the story to the Post.)

Since the New York Post broke the story of this $40 million blunder, Wynn's guests have been speaking with whomever will listen. But they promised not to talk about it. Is this an enforceable promise?

Gifts and Contracts

In contracts class we spend a fair amount of time distinguishing between gifts and valid consideration. In short, we talk about whether gifts are enforceable contracts. In the real world this distinction between gifts and enforceable contracts has been creating some problems for organizations who depend on charitable gifts. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a growing number of donors are reneging (not following through with giving their gift) on their gift pledge. The problem is such now that many institutions are trying to devise ways to make charitable gifts enforceable contracts. The main problem, so says the WSJ, is that many of these gifts are made orally. The problem is compounded by the fact that many charitable donors would probably be offended by having to put their gift pledge in writing. As one donor notes, "My word is good. If they don't trust me they don't have to take the money -- I can go somewhere else. There are plenty of places that are happy to accept gifts without promises." But would putting the pledge in writing really make that much of a difference as far as enforceability goes?

Borat's List of Angry "Victims" Growing

And so is the list of people suing Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen). The DPA is reporting that the villagers in the Borat film, who are actually Romanian villagers, are suing in New York, Florida and, get this, German courts. Again, the main claim is they were misled into appearing in the film. Looks as though the great American tradition of suing is catching on here in Deutschland. Of course, this won't be the first lawsuit filed against "Borat" in Germany. Shortly before it's release in Germany, two lawsuits were filed here to stop the film from being shown because it allegedly incited racial and ethnic hatred.

Let the Games Begin

You gotta love Americans and their propensity to sue over just about anything. Earlier I posted a piece about how some people think that suing Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) for "tricking" people into signing release forms for the movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is possible. It only takes a few legal "experts" to plant the seed, and it appears the seeds are sprouting. E Online is reporting that frat boys in South Carolina who were "duped" into appearing in the Borat flick, and saying some rather racy stuff I am told (sadly, I have still not yet seen the movie), are suing:

The young men charged the studio with fraud; rescission of contract; statutory and common law false light, for framing their comments to make them appear "insensitive to minorities"; appropriation of likeness; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

To think, you can sue someone for "tricking" you into revealing your true feelings. No wonder the world thinks Americans lawsuit happy.

Borat Tricked Me. Can I Sue?

There is a great piece on the Slate Magazine website about whether the people who were tricked into appearing in the new Borat movie, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, can sue under a variety of legal claims. As the article notes, these people all had to sign the "standard release form" used by the entertainment industry. This agreement is basically a contract that prohibits people from suing the producer of the movie because they didn't like what movie did with their image. The article does a nice job explaining some of the potential legal claims that are barred by these release forms. The article ends with this question:

The release form seems to cover all the bases, but it's not clear if it precludes all legal action. A participant might claim that he was tricked into signing the contract under false pretenses.

An interesting question in light of the emphasis placed upon volition in determining whether a valid contract exists.

A Costly Comma

The New York Times ran a story a few days ago on the case I talked briefly about in Common Law of Contract class concerning comma use in a contract. I was a bit off on how much money was at stake (my terrible memory had me thinking 100s of millions when in fact the comma placement is worth $1 million), yet the point remains the same. Drafting a contract very carefully, even down to comma use can save one a lot of trouble. As the NYT reports:

If there is a moral to the story about a contract dispute between Canadian companies, this is it: Pay attention in grammar class. The dispute between Rogers Communications of Toronto, Canada’s largest cable television provider, and a telephone company in Atlantic Canada, Bell Aliant, is over the phone company’s attempt to cancel a contract governing Rogers’ use of telephone poles. But the argument turns on a single comma in the 14-page contract. The answer is worth 1 million Canadian dollars ($888,000).

Contract Claims for a Date Gone Wrong

One of the first things we discuss is Common Law of Contract is the idea of oral contracts. As Prof. Lundmark's handout (see handout 1) notes, the "ready provability of oral contracts" distinguishes common law from civil law. But how far does this leniency toward oral contracts go? Good question and one that reared its ugly head in a story that has become legendary on the Internet. The story involves Internet dating, the age-old question of whether the dinner bill should be split on the first date, and the remedy for failed expectations when the date goes bad. Remedy? A post at quizlaw.com explains how one rejected and dejected dater tried to use contract law to reclaim the money he spent on a first date. It's a funny (pathetic?) story that's worth a quick look.