Lawyer Offers $1M For Proof His Client Could Have Done It; Oops 362
A Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, made the mistake of offering a million dollars on a TV show to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Having a lot of free time, South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare. Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took, completed the trip under the time allowed, and videotaped the whole process. He is now suing Mason in the federal district court — because the attorney doesn't want to pay, saying that his statement was just a joke.
Technically.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that this guy doesn't really have a case. Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs. TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.
Re:sanctions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. I would love to hear what the Florida State Bar Association has to say. He did offer to pay for research that could help the prosecution.
I don't see any positive comments here on Slashdot. We should all look on the bright side. The more time lawyers spend fighting each other, the better the odds for a peaceful and harmonious society. :)
Re:Pepsi points (Score:5, Interesting)
My law professor gave the example that if I said, "I'll give anyone who climbs the flagpole naked 1000 bucks," and they don't do it, I'm in the clear. IF they do, I'm screwed out of 1000 bucks because I made a public statement that a number of people witnessed. Even if they start up and I tell everyone, the person climbing included, that I won't follow through, they can sue me and win for the verbal contracted initiated.
IANAL and not studying to be one, just taking a couple law classes cause they're interesting.
Re:Technically.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? Who gives a flying flip about the trial?
I want the LAWYER to get a lesson in unilateral contracts from the law student. That's what makes this interesting. I couldn't give two hoots about the guilt of the lawyer's client.
Re:He didn't prove it though (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but that isn't the reason the lawyer is trying to back out of the agreement.
One might even interpret that as an implicit agreement that it is, in fact, proof his client was guilty. Which might be eligible in court.
Re:Dishonest lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not even American, nor have I ever been there, but I reckon that if you can't find the humour in Dick Cheney shooting his friend, mistaking him for a deer (or was it a duck), then there's something wrong.
Maybe I should post AC when I throw in a silly comment. Some of you guys are far too serious.
NewYorkCountryLawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lack of standing (Score:3, Interesting)
Unilateral contracts are distinguished by three points - 1. A specific reward or payment to a group of persons or the wider public, 2. for a particular action from the offeree which will form acceptance and performance, 3. and with the intention to create legal relations.
In this case, the intention of the parties is the most important part for the courts to consider. In Carlill v. Carbolic, the offerer specifically stated that money was deposited with a bank for the reward. This action indicated to the courts that the intention to pay was present, even if this action was only to erect an illusion of intention, it is enough to satisfy that point in law.
It is entirely predictable in this case for Mason to argue that the offer was not serious with no real intention to create legal relations. This is the same argument made by Carbolic in the landmark case. However, what Kolodziej has in front of him now is to prove that Mason's action on TV amounted is serious. This is plausible. One line of attack he can use is that Mason made his comments on Dateline, as opposed to something like Jerry Springer. It really depends on how the arguments are made, and how the judge decides given the facts and arguments.
Re:sanctions? (Score:4, Interesting)
What he didn't think of is that with the current recession, people have a lot of time on their hands and, hey, a million is a million. And appearantly at least one person thought (rightfully) that it is not impossible.
Re:Technically.. (Score:5, Interesting)
He will make the situation worse for himself, since he will be guilty of incitement of crime. Offering to pay people to commit murder is also illegal the last time I checked. If he actually uses that excuse, he will then simply avoiding paying the one million, only to be arrested and sent to jail for conspiracy to murder. Especially if some nutcase actually did go and commit the murders, just to take him up on his dare. Which in America, seems a bit more likely than other places, in my opinion.
Any particular reason why you are so keen on finding excuses for the lawyer to weasel out of his promise?
There are a number of such public challenges made. Ansari X comes to mind. There are various individuals who invest significant effort, time and money based on the promise of the award. The person/organizations making the promise are not allowed to weasel out later and renege on their promise, causing severe damage to those who invested significant money completing the challenge, based on the promise. He didn't state it was a joke. He was not on a comedy show. He had not been asked to make a joke. Until the challenge had actually been completed, he had full rights to even publicly withdraw it. He did not do so. So he is legally obliged to pay.
The lawyer is being just a weasel, based on his obvious advantage of not requiring to hire a lawyer to defend himself. His legal expenses in defending himself will be significantly less than the other guy.
There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.
Re:Technically.. (Score:1, Interesting)
You're missing the point.
The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.
Not that someone else could do it. The GP points out that this is what Dustin Kolodziej has accomplished and that his claim for the cash will easily be disputed in a court of law. This could be the loophole the lawyer needs to get out of this easily.
I'm not, and I don't know if GP is, saying this is right - but hey, there's law for you
Re:Pepsi points (Score:4, Interesting)
Burma Shave once had a problem of offering someone a trip to Mars for 900 jars. They offered the winner a trip to Moers instead, which was accepted, but that was probably because the winner was media savvy enough to fight this out in the press rather than in court. If he'd have tried to get the media on his side, Pepsi would probably have been happy to offer a decent adventure holiday if they could have got some decent PR out of it.
Re:Technically.. (Score:4, Interesting)
That seems to be what the guy has done. The lawyer asked for proof that his client was ABLE to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Not whether he actually did do it.
Dustin Kolodziej was able to make the journey in that time, and therefore provided evidence that Nelson Ivan Serrano also was able to make that journey.
Re:Technically.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that there is no question that Serrano had the motive and the opportunity, the question was more along the lines of did he have the means? The lawyer was saying that "Serrano couldn't have done because nobody could have done it," but clearly Kolodziej proved that someone could have done it, hence Serrano could have done it, all else being equal.
Re:Really, now (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.
Re:Technically.. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a number of such public challenges made. Ansari X comes to mind. There are various individuals who invest significant effort, time and money based on the promise of the award. The person/organizations making the promise are not allowed to weasel out later and renege on their promise, causing severe damage to those who invested significant money completing the challenge, based on the promise. He didn't state it was a joke. He was not on a comedy show. He had not been asked to make a joke. Until the challenge had actually been completed, he had full rights to even publicly withdraw it. He did not do so. So he is legally obliged to pay.
Not necessarily. This is distinct from challenges such as the XPrize, because those events have very specific and detailed requirements... including that the "prize" goes to the first successful entrant, that the event has a specified and detailed goal, that there's a time limit of a few years to successfully complete, etc. This had none of those. This is closer to the Pepsi-co Harrier Jet giveaway (remember the television commercial, 15 million pepsi points for a Harrier, or something?). No reasonable person could believe based on his short statement that he was making an actual offer to engage in a unilateral contract, particularly one that would be open to everyone, forever. Thus, there's no need for him to rescind the offer, because it was not an offer.
And before you accuse me of being "keen on finding excuses for the lawyer" like you did to the grandparent, I have no stake in this. I just like contract law.
Re:sanctions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:sanctions? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?
If you're putting a smiley emoticon after the unstated parenthetical of your answer, and also admitting to us that you probably know more than the average person on the street, which was explicitly the question they asked, I'm not sure exactly what other answer is available to you. They didn't say anything about the "Cambridge jury pool," they used a completely standard term with a commonsense meaning, which could only be intentionally misconstrued.
I am not a sociologist nor statistician
I am not a lawyer, but I know when someone who has had law enforcement training tells me that he doesn't have a better understanding of the law than a common person, he's pulling my leg. The question was completely appropriate; they were satisfied you knew more than the average person because of your experience, res ipso loquitor. They just wanted to see if you would answer a possibly-disqualifying question ingenuously. Which you didn't. You were swinging your arms with your eyes closed, and if you smacked the truth, you were satisfied it was the truth's fault.
And cops wonder why they sometimes encounter distrust from civilians...