Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
where the money may have gone has zero legal impact on this case. it still all boils down to wether a "reasonable man" would have thought it was a legitimate offer or a joke. to answer that it must be asked:
do you believe donald trump's biological father could have been an orangutan?
Well... because you don't like my answer so far to this question what I can contribute is this...
I don't think too many people would find it funny, try a few analogies at the work place or something. So we know if it was a joke, there was no joke relative to your above reasonable mans translation, in this case as you know, as imposed on T. So there you go.
for trump to win he'll have to prove in court that maher wasn't joking and to do that he'll have to prove that a "rational person" could believe that it's absolutely possible for trump's father to have been an orangutan.
should be a fun case if it goes to trial.
Hope he wins and relieves M of some of his excess cash.
here you appear to be contradicting yourself. if he was being a "smart allec" then it was a joke and not a legitimate offer to be held to.
If I mention he was being a smart allec thats only my opinion and has nothing to do with any of this. If T feels he was being a smart allec then it may be (and I donno) relative to T, with M making sure the deal was recieved with good attention- taken seriously, a vehicle-nothing to do with the deal itself (birth cert for charity.....but that is an answer for T and his team. ( if thats what it comes to...ok Im tired of this and as mentioned its between those guys and the disadvantaged , fans and cheerleaders across the board I suppose// opinion.
Last edited by stargazzer; 02-05-2013 at 10:50 PM..
a birth certificate was never asked for nor would it be sufficient proof in this case. if it had been a legit offer then a DNA test would have been needed.
a birth certificate was never asked for nor would it be sufficient proof in this case. if it had been a legit offer then a DNA test would have been needed.
Well thats interesting ...I guess in time everyone will know whats up with this argument.
I must say I'm surprised that anybody from a biglaw firm like Cooley would want to have their name on something like this when there is a decent chance that Maher's attorneys will seek sanctions. In particular, explicitly saying that Real Time is not a "comedy" when it is clearly has sharp satire elements may be a misrepresentation. In addition, omitting the laughter from the Jay Leno transcript in Exhibit B may also constitute a misrepresentation, especially when the crux of the complaint is that Maher wasn't joking. On the other hand, Donald Trump is probably a big client and when your big client wants something done, you find a way to give it your best.
While several posters in this thread have been linking to cases, I want to explain one particular case, Leonard v. Pepsico, to show exactly why this case will fail and why it is a frivolous action.
Pepsi aired a (slightly) funny commercial back in the '90s, advertising a catalog where you could earn points by buying Pepsi products that you could then exchange for various goodies. A shirt would be 75 points, 1,450 points for a leather jacket, and so on. At the end of the commercial, a Harrier jet lands in a schoolyard and the text at the bottom of the screen says that you could get a Harrier jet for 7,000,000 points.
This guy Leonard figured out that because the catalog said you could pay cash as well, with 10 cents a point, the advertisement thus offered a Harrier jet for $700,000. Leonard then sent in 15 Pepsi points, a certified check for the remaining points, and $10 for shipping and handling (I love that detail). When Pepsi sent his check back and said they would not be giving him a jet, Leonard sued for breach of contract.
The district (and on appeal, 2nd Circuit) threw out the case because (1) the ad did not actually constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second of Contracts), (2) no reasonable person could take the ad seriously, and (3) the alleged contract, if true, would have violated the Statute of Frauds (which does not apply to this case).
I'm not 100% certain that the Restatement applies in California, but some version of it probably does. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Under the Restatement, an offer "is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it." Despite what some people may hope/see as a bad joke, there's no reasonable interpretation in which Maher's comment was a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain. An entertainer such as Bill Maher who regularly performs standup (whether you think he's funny or misogynistic is ultimately subjective and irrelevant) making a quip about Trump's ancestry on The Tonight Show, a quip that was greeted with some laughter, is extremely unlikely to be one that a reasonable person could take seriously.
Reminds me of Larry Flint and his Jerry Falwell's first sexual encounter with his mother in and out house. LOL Fallwell lost and so will Trump. It will only make him look dumber than he does now.
I must say I'm surprised that anybody from a biglaw firm like Cooley would want to have their name on something like this when there is a decent chance that Maher's attorneys will seek sanctions. In particular, explicitly saying that Real Time is not a "comedy" when it is clearly has sharp satire elements may be a misrepresentation. In addition, omitting the laughter from the Jay Leno transcript in Exhibit B may also constitute a misrepresentation, especially when the crux of the complaint is that Maher wasn't joking. On the other hand, Donald Trump is probably a big client and when your big client wants something done, you find a way to give it your best.
While several posters in this thread have been linking to cases, I want to explain one particular case, Leonard v. Pepsico, to show exactly why this case will fail and why it is a frivolous action.
Pepsi aired a (slightly) funny commercial back in the '90s, advertising a catalog where you could earn points by buying Pepsi products that you could then exchange for various goodies. A shirt would be 75 points, 1,450 points for a leather jacket, and so on. At the end of the commercial, a Harrier jet lands in a schoolyard and the text at the bottom of the screen says that you could get a Harrier jet for 7,000,000 points.
This guy Leonard figured out that because the catalog said you could pay cash as well, with 10 cents a point, the advertisement thus offered a Harrier jet for $700,000. Leonard then sent in 15 Pepsi points, a certified check for the remaining points, and $10 for shipping and handling (I love that detail). When Pepsi sent his check back and said they would not be giving him a jet, Leonard sued for breach of contract.
The district (and on appeal, 2nd Circuit) threw out the case because (1) the ad did not actually constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second of Contracts), (2) no reasonable person could take the ad seriously, and (3) the alleged contract, if true, would have violated the Statute of Frauds (which does not apply to this case).
I'm not 100% certain that the Restatement applies in California, but some version of it probably does. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Under the Restatement, an offer "is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it." Despite what some people may hope/see as a bad joke, there's no reasonable interpretation in which Maher's comment was a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain. An entertainer such as Bill Maher who regularly performs standup (whether you think he's funny or misogynistic is ultimately subjective and irrelevant) making a quip about Trump's ancestry on The Tonight Show, a quip that was greeted with some laughter, is extremely unlikely to be one that a reasonable person could take seriously.
tl;dr: Trump's father may have been an orangutan.
Oh brother.. what has this to do with one individuals specific call to confrontation with terms, to another individual enclosed in ridicule ? Documents for charity.Trying to compare these examples to this issue is flat out ridiculous.
Last edited by stargazzer; 02-06-2013 at 09:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
