http://www.sptimes.com/News/072801/State/Dream_car_is_a__toy_Y.shtml
I’d be a little choked too!
LOL.
funniest part of the whole story is the picture. That picture is great.
I think it’s kind of funny, actually. She was led on sure, but it’s not like she had to go out of her way, spend money or anything else to enter the contest. She didn’t sell beer on her own time. She wasn’t selling beer under the guise of a prize. She was doing her job, and her name was drawn because she was doing her job. I can see the disappointment, but also the humor. Maybe it’s just me, but I enjoy a good practical joke where nobody is harmed. And I don’t see where she was harmed, especially financially, from this, just bummed out. I’m sure she’ll win her lawsuit though.
Well considering that Hooters already exploits women, and I’m sure this practical joker was a man, I hope she does win the lawsuit. This was not a “joke” in my opinion. It was mean-spirited and counter-productive (like anyone will want to work hard for that dimwit ever again).
Can’t find a cite but I think that recently in the UK a woman won a car on a radioshow and it turned out to be a miniature toy car. She sued the radiostation and got the car or the money can’t remember…
I was unable to find this on google so it could have been just a dream. Sometimes that can happen 
When I was ten or so, my friend mixed up this godawful concoction in the kitchen, mixing in just about any liquid he could find short of Drain-O, and told me if I drank it he’s give me twenty “doll-hairs.” Bastard. Now I see I should have sued.
Without going into the debate about this joke being funny or not: how does Hooters exploit women other than a construction company “exploits” big guys that carry bags of cement?
I’m assuming these girls weren’t forced to work there, and they get paid, right? How is that exploitation?
how is she going to prove that he said “Toyota” and not “toy-yoda” in a court of law?
According to the article, The Mick, he said “Toyota Automobile” when telling the waitresses about the contest. Also, when asked questions about the vehicle, he said he wasn’t sure if it was going to be a car, truck or minivan. It was pretty obvious that he wasn’t talking about a stuffed doll. They also said that there was another waitress that backed her story.
She claims the man specifically said “a new Toyota automobile.” If so, I hope she wins the lawsuit and I hope the jerk gets fired. In fact, he should be fired out of hand just for being a mean-spirited, petty jerk. Humor at the expense of another human being is NOT funny.
She got the money, the DJ lost his job.
If the boss did indeed use the word “automobile”, then I think he’s up shit creek with his tongue as the paddle.
However, if he in fact didn’t ever say that, and was careful to pronounce, enunciate (sp?), and choose cunningly words … well, then I think it’s a rather clever prank.
I’m interested to know what the prizes were in the other contests the store had held. If they were big prizes, then it lends some legitimacy to the case for the worker. If the real prizes were always small, then perhaps the worker should have been more skeptical.
Still, I’d feel a lot better about it if instead of hyping it so much, the boss had just told one of the employees one day, “You’ve just won a brand new toy-yoda! Congrats!” and then immediately presented the winner with the toy.
If everything in the link is true, the bastard will be fired and she will get her car. Remember, he made the misrepresentation to other workers as well. The other workers are more than likely to want to testify to this.
IANAL, but I think there may be a contract here. “If you sell more beer than any of your co-workers, then this establishment will give you a Toyota automobile”. Anyone involved in trying to win the contest would naturally be working much harder than they normally would, probably much harder than they are required to work by management.
All that aside, that was just plain cruel. The manager should be severly beaten.
Hehe…
One of my fraternity brothers bought a pleather couch and matching love seat on EBay for $50. He goes to pick it up…it’s a miniature!
::giggles::
Not only all that, but if you put one of those “furby” Yodas to sleep for an extended period of time, their eyelids tear apart and Yoda ends up looking like a zombee. Believe me. I know. It is just bad looking.
All told, I would rather have the car.
There is a .wav file floating around from a radio station that goes something like this:
I’m pretty sure that guy didn’t try to get the money.
I think the key issue here is that this isn’t just a practical joke between two people, it was a practical joke between an employer and an employee.
Not only that, it was a practical joke designed to extract maximum work performance before reaching the punchline.
Consider:
My boss comes to us and says: “If we finish this big project on time and within budget I’ll give you each An Extra Large Bonus”.
We do so.
A week later we are each presented with John Irving’s latest novel “An Extra Large Bonus”.
Yes, it is kind of clever. Yes, we were just doing our jobs anyway. Yes, we would be almost justified when we crammed him into his disk drive.
She should get a car, or the equivalent.
spooje is right, if the facts are anything like as reported in the article. All you need for a contract are an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The offer is “Sell the most beer and we’ll put you in a drawing for a new Toyota/Toy yoda.” She accepted the offer by selling the most beer at the store, which is also the consideration for the contract.
Turbo Dog seems to suggest there isn’t any consideration because it was already her job to sell beer, but that likely won’t fly. It’s not like her job was contingent on selling the most beer, and going above and beyond is almost certainly enough extra consideration that she won’t have any problem with that aspect of the contract. Alternatively, she can just tie this into the employment contract she already had. After all, if your boss tells you you’re getting $100 extra per month, he can’t refuse to give it to you after you’ve done the work just because you were doing the same job you were doing the month before.
If the boss said the prize was a “Toyota automobile,” it’s a no-brainer. But even if all he said was “toy Yoda,” Hooters still loses. A basic principle of contract formation is that if one person makes an offer with knowledge or reason to believe that the offeree misunderstands the offer as being about something else entirely, the offeror is on the hook for the thing that the other person thought it was. There’s no way the manager can deny that he had reason to believe the waitress would misinterpret “toy Yoda” as “Toyota.”
In short, the manager made an offer (on behalf of the company) knowing how the offerees would interpret it, and now he’s trying to weasel out of it. At this very moment, Hooters’ lawyers are telling them to break out their checkbook, 'cause they have zero chance of winning.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
I detest frivolous lawsuits, but upon reading the article, and taking it at face-value…
YOU GO, GIRL! 
Come on, be fair: apart from knock-knock jokes, there really aren’t that many other funny things around. And I ain’t crazy about knock-knock jokes myself…