Heard about this on the radio.
A visits next door neighbor B. B offers A a Coke and hands A an unopened can. A pops the top, and finds the can is a $10,000 winner. B grabs the can back and says it is hers. A and B are now in court.
Riddle me this, teeming masses. Whose money is it and why?
I’d slap them both silly.
As cases go, however, I’d have to side with the person to whom the Coke was given. After all, A gave it to B. She didn’t say “Oh, and if it’s a winner, you have to give me the money” or anything.
This is a no-brainer. They should split the money. Why not just take the free $5,000 apiece (minus Uncle Sam’s cut, of course) and both get something for nothing? But no, just because it’s possible to fight for the larger amount, they have to take a good thing and make it ugly.
Greedy bastards.
How stupid can A possibly be? Has she never heard “The Gambler”?
You don’t freak out right in front of the person who dealt you the $10,000 hand. It’s like waving an open wallet in front of a lawyer.
She should’ve popped the top, looked at it, said “Huh. Free Coke. Cool.” and slipped it into her pocket. After all, she’s not lying, not so long as when she cashes the check, she goes right out and buys a Coke with the money.
It’s A’s coke now! A might consider kicking down a little cash for B, but is under no obligation to do so. If I were A in this situation, I’d of punched B in the back of the head.
Does B’s intent have anything to do with it?
FWIW, I am not sure the law resolves this well. I think it boils down to individual ethics, which in this case will be imposed by a court. Blech!
How bout this scenario, male boss hands female employee a Coke can with a pubic hair on it …
Kind of an interesting case. I can see the argument Saint Zero makes that it belongs to the person to whom it was given as a gift (A).
That being said, personally I think it should go to B. Legally there may be an argument for this as well. Part of what makes a “gift” under the law is the donor’s intent to make the gift. Clearly, B intended to give A a Coke, not $10,000.00.
I believe there have been similar cases where A gave B an item which unknown to A also contained something very valuable (i.e. a box of knick knacks but there was an envelope with $10,000.00 in it). IIRC the court held the intent of the gift was only that part the A intended to give to B.
In your example, A did not the envelope was there. In the OP, the can itself is worth 10G’s. B intended to give the can, but merely underestimated it’s worth.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spooje *
**
Yeah, that’s the counter argument I’d make too. That being said, the donor’s intent was clearly to give the donee a regular can of Coke to quench his thirst, not to enrichen him/her by giving them a winning game piece worth $10,000.
Depends. If they were cannibals or not. If they are cannibals then:
guy: Do you eat arms?
Neighbor: yes, then I drink Pepsi.
guy: do you eat legs?
Neighbor: yes, then I drink Pepsi.
guy: Do you eat the thing?
Neighbor: No, I don’t eat the THING!
guy: Then its mine because I eat the THING & then drink Coke because things go better with Coke.!
But B had to have known that the can had a game piece on it. That’s like giving a friend a lottery ticket, and then snatching it back when it turns out to be a winner.
“My intent was to give you a losing lottery ticket.”
Now, if B had a history of always asking for the empty can back, he/she’d have an argument…
Yeah, but usually when I drink a coke at someone’s house I leave the can there. I put it in the trash, or recyle bin or whatever. Suppose B can establish that A consistantly did the same thing. B would have a case that she was only planning to give the coke, with the expected, while not explicit, return of the can.
I wonder how much of the $10,000 is going to be spent in legal fees? It’d be sad if they spent half of it trying to keep the other from getting any, rather than just splitting it.
With the added bonus of being known as major leage a**holes in their hometown.
Lets’ see, $10G, after taxes = $6,500, divided between the 2 = $3,250 apiece. Both go home with more than they started that morning.
When I used to do commercial litigation, I believed it was pretty tough to justify suing for less than $10G. A complaint, any discovery, a substantive pleading, and a court appearance or two, and the fees really add up quickly.
Well, I don’t always know when there is some sort of game involved with the can/bottle of soda I’m drinking. So, saying he had to know is not necessarily true.
Also, the comparison to a lottery ticket has some faults. A lottery ticket serves no other purpose as a gift. The benefit you give (and must be intending to give) is the chance for the donee to win some cash. Not so when I give you a can of Coke. The benefit I’m most likely intending is to give you something cool to drink (in that regard the can is merely a means to convey the gift, lest I just pour it down your throat).
In any case, IMO, the guy who received the soda from his neighbor is a major ass. The guy spends his money on soda, gives it to you, the can is a rare (another point to make for the lack of intent argument) winner and you don’t even want to split it with the guy. Hell, if it were me I’d give the guy the winning can and be happy for him.
How do you know he didn’t want to split it with him? Perhaps he did, but A wanted ALL of the money.