Pepsi, where is my jet?

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed

I remember this story as a kid.

I collected Pepsi points. Would ride my bike around the neighborhood on recycling day and cut them off of 2 liters and 12/24 pack boxes (assuming the person recycling them hadn’t already done so). I guess you could say I was a young dumpster diver.

I think I ended up redeeming them for a pair of sunglasses and a reclining beach chair.

I have not seen it, but based off the title, I am assuming its regarding the Harrier case from the 90s. Very interesting story, it's cool Netflix made a documentary of it.

Honestly, my impression is that the kid was out for a lawsuit (knowing that Pepsi cannot possibly deliver a Harrier) and was trying to pressure them into a cash settlement. I don't think he really wanted a Pepsi Harrier. They returned his check (that he attempted to buy the points with), so I don't think Pepsi completely screwed him.

I'll have to watch it at some point, its probably well made, especially if it's just a single movie, and not one of those 10-part documentaries that drags on far longer than it needs to (which Netflix is sometimes guilty of).

Quote: Gandler

I have not seen it, but based off the title, I am assuming its regarding the Harrier case from the 90s. Very interesting story, it's cool Netflix made a documentary of it.

Honestly, my impression is that the kid was out for a lawsuit (knowing that Pepsi cannot possibly deliver a Harrier) and was trying to pressure them into a cash settlement. I don't think he really wanted a Pepsi Harrier. They returned his check (that he attempted to buy the points with), so I don't think Pepsi completely screwed him.

I'll have to watch it at some point, its probably well made, especially if it's just a single movie, and not one of those 10-part documentaries that drags on far longer than it needs to (which Netflix is sometimes guilty of).
link to original post

As I said, I did not know about this story. The Netflix show is four episodes and based on it I don't think the kid was out for a payment.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Gandler

I have not seen it, but based off the title, I am assuming its regarding the Harrier case from the 90s. Very interesting story, it's cool Netflix made a documentary of it.

Honestly, my impression is that the kid was out for a lawsuit (knowing that Pepsi cannot possibly deliver a Harrier) and was trying to pressure them into a cash settlement. I don't think he really wanted a Pepsi Harrier. They returned his check (that he attempted to buy the points with), so I don't think Pepsi completely screwed him.

I'll have to watch it at some point, its probably well made, especially if it's just a single movie, and not one of those 10-part documentaries that drags on far longer than it needs to (which Netflix is sometimes guilty of).
link to original post

As I said, I did not know about this story. The Netflix show is four episodes and based on it I don't think the kid was out for a payment.
link to original post

I mean he was a fulltime student that got money from investors if I recall correctly to send the 600k. What were they planning on doing if they got a Harrier, park it in their dorm? It was clearly an investment opportunity, they would either sell the plane (many millions) or hope for a cash offer (or hope for a lawsuit if neither were granted). There is no way they wanted the plane as a collectable or for personal use.

If Pepsi was really out to screw him, they could have cashed the check, and just awarded the points and forced him to use the points on merchandise that was actually listed on the points catalogue.

Pepsi’s argument, which the judge agreed with, is that no one would reasonably believe that the commercial was an actual offer for a jet.

I disagree. The ad was targeted towards children. Seven year old me and my friends definitely thought the jet was attainable if you got enough points.

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for the plaintiff, though. Pepsi offered to settle for something like $300k in 90’s dollars, which he declined and ended up getting nothing.

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

I did watch that. I definitely liked it, but some of it was a little boring. Supposedly there's a lesson to be learned in watching this.

I didn't watch much TV during the '90s, but that's one commercial that I remember.

Coke is way better tasting than Pepsi. Canned soda is the best. I know people love the taste of glass bottles but I think that's a mental thing. Real-sugar Mexican soft drinks SUCK it tastes like diet soda to me.

Quote: gamerfreak

Pepsi’s argument, which the judge agreed with, is that no one would reasonably believe that the commercial was an actual offer for a jet.

I disagree. The ad was targeted towards children. Seven year old me and my friends definitely thought the jet was attainable if you got enough points.

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for the plaintiff, though. Pepsi offered to settle for something like $300k in 90’s dollars, which he declined and ended up getting nothing.
link to original post

I thought it was a million they were offered? Whatever the case, I don't know why they didn't counteroffer. It seems as if they wanted the jet/equal value, or nothing.

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

Thanks I am watching it now based on your recommendation

Quote: gamerfreak

Pepsi’s argument, which the judge agreed with, is that no one would reasonably believe that the commercial was an actual offer for a jet.

I disagree. The ad was targeted towards children. Seven year old me and my friends definitely thought the jet was attainable if you got enough points.

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for the plaintiff, though. Pepsi offered to settle for something like $300k in 90’s dollars, which he declined and ended up getting nothing.
link to original post

According to the plaintiff, they were offered 750k-1 million. The kid said he wanted the jet. They allegedly had some sort of plan for it.

I think it was a really interesting case and I do think the plaintiff got screwed. The documentary also discusses a cash prize promotion Pepsi held in the Phillipines which they also did not honor. It led to riots and a few deaths. The real Pepsi challenge is taking them on in court.

Team Pepsi, standard Coke is trash.

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

He was not an AP, he was a guy trying to make a jerk out of himself. It is because of his type that we need silly warning labels and disclaimers on everything these days.

Some company, I forget who, said employees would win IIRC a Mercedes in some internal contest. They tried to use the Pepsi, "it was an obvious joke" defense but got shot down as the judge ruled no normal person would think the jet was a real thing but any rational person would think the Mercedes was.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

He was not an AP, he was a guy trying to make a jerk out of himself. It is because of his type that we need silly warning labels and disclaimers on everything these days.

Some company, I forget who, said employees would win IIRC a Mercedes in some internal contest. They tried to use the Pepsi, "it was an obvious joke" defense but got shot down as the judge ruled no normal person would think the jet was a real thing but any rational person would think the Mercedes was.
link to original post

You might be thinking of the Hooters Toyota case.

They offered up a “Toyota” as the prize, but it was actually a “Toy Yoda”



The waitress sued and won.

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

Already have done!

For anyone who hasn’t, when you see how he actually figures out a way to make it happen, that’s the sort of thinking that slot AP’s, and perhaps promotion AP’s, more specifically, do. It’s all about finding the angle, if there’s one to be found.

He got screwed, but he also kind of screwed himself…at one point…imo. I think he could have maybe got more, but he never could have got the jet. Although, I almost certainly would have just taken the offer.

It’s a good lesson—-if you reach for the stars, you’ll almost always fail to reach them! The safe play is usually the best.

Quote: Gandler

I have not seen it, but based off the title, I am assuming its regarding the Harrier case from the 90s. Very interesting story, it's cool Netflix made a documentary of it.

Honestly, my impression is that the kid was out for a lawsuit (knowing that Pepsi cannot possibly deliver a Harrier) and was trying to pressure them into a cash settlement. I don't think he really wanted a Pepsi Harrier. They returned his check (that he attempted to buy the points with), so I don't think Pepsi completely screwed him.

I'll have to watch it at some point, its probably well made, especially if it's just a single movie, and not one of those 10-part documentaries that drags on far longer than it needs to (which Netflix is sometimes guilty of).
link to original post

It’s really good!

As DRich said, it’s four parts. I think it could have been trimmed to three and wouldn’t have lost anything, but the lulls aren’t that bad.

If you do, make sure to come back and tell us if your opinion of the guy’s goal changed!

Also, team nobody.

I would have been Team Pepsi, but I watched the documentary and saw what happened in the Philippines, so no one Pepsi purchase a week for them anymore. I’m sure losing the one 20oz a week I used to drink will bankrupt them.

I don’t know, but would assume Coke has done something equally bad elsewhere. Pop is not good for you anyway.

TeamWater or TeamUnsweetenedTea! (But not tea produced by a Pepsi or Coke subsidiary)

Quote: gamerfreak

Pepsi’s argument, which the judge agreed with, is that no one would reasonably believe that the commercial was an actual offer for a jet.

I disagree. The ad was targeted towards children. Seven year old me and my friends definitely thought the jet was attainable if you got enough points.

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for the plaintiff, though. Pepsi offered to settle for something like $300k in 90’s dollars, which he declined and ended up getting nothing.
link to original post

I think the judge’s decision is a trademark of PepsiCo and is their intellectual property by right of purchase.

Quote: Mission146

Also, team nobody.

I would have been Team Pepsi, but I watched the documentary and saw what happened in the Philippines, so no one Pepsi purchase a week for them anymore. I’m sure losing the one 20oz a week I used to drink will bankrupt them.

I don’t know, but would assume Coke has done something equally bad elsewhere. Pop is not good for you anyway.

TeamWater or TeamUnsweetenedTea! (But not tea produced by a Pepsi or Coke subsidiary)
link to original post

What happened in the Philippines is really a black mark on the philipinos. That has happened before in other locales.

I recall some NY Daily News contest and a misprint error led to something similar and they had to apologise that people who thought they won had not.

You didn't see the Daily News offices burned and riots in times square.

The same thing would happen in any Casino setting as well. Imagine if suddenly every slot machine in a casino hit the same exact jackpot. No one would get paid as they investigated and shut the system down (btw that was the plot point of Oceans 13, to make every patron a simultaneous winner)

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Also, team nobody.

I would have been Team Pepsi, but I watched the documentary and saw what happened in the Philippines, so no one Pepsi purchase a week for them anymore. I’m sure losing the one 20oz a week I used to drink will bankrupt them.

I don’t know, but would assume Coke has done something equally bad elsewhere. Pop is not good for you anyway.

TeamWater or TeamUnsweetenedTea! (But not tea produced by a Pepsi or Coke subsidiary)
link to original post

What happened in the Philippines is really a black mark on the philipinos. That has happened before in other locales.

I recall some NY Daily News contest and a misprint error led to something similar and they had to apologise that people who thought they won had not.

You didn't see the Daily News offices burned and riots in times square.

The same thing would happen in any Casino setting as well. Imagine if suddenly every slot machine in a casino hit the same exact jackpot. No one would get paid as they investigated and shut the system down (btw that was the plot point of Oceans 13, to make every patron a simultaneous winner)
link to original post

It has nothing to do with Filipinos.

The best case scenario that I can give Pepsi on that one is to assume that it was an inside job, so someone wanting to get the company decided to have the TV declare a number that was meant to be a loser that the person would either have known, or would assume, that there would be a high number of.

The worst case scenario is that Pepsi screwed up in a way that wasn't someone deliberately trying to tank them, by broadcasting a number that was clearly not meant to be associated with winning caps.

Either way, they turned buying Pepsi (a harmful product, btw) into basically a lottery to take advantage of the poor and to improve their market share as compared to the much better-performing (in the Philippines) Coke.

It also appears that all but three people, in the second wave of settlements, were happy to settle for 10,000 pesos as opposed to the 1,000,000 pesos that were offered as part of the promotion by Pepsi. If Wikipedia is to be believed, everyone else either settled for less than that, or alternatively, were one of only three people to hold out and end up being awarded 30,000 pesos.

Anyway, correcting the error and offering 10,000 pesos to all cap holders, evidently, would have cost Pepsi something like 320M (USD) since paying everyone the 1,000,000 pesos, according to Wikipedia, would have been 32B (USD).

In any event, Pepsi conducted a lottery that was rigged, was known (or could be assumed to be rigged) and still managed to foul that up, so I don't know how you want that to be the fault of Filipino citizens. I mean, all Pepsi had to do was announce the number associated with the two caps that was supposed to win...and a multi-billion dollar company (yes, even then) managed to screw up that simple task.

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

He was not an AP, he was a guy trying to make a jerk out of himself. It is because of his type that we need silly warning labels and disclaimers on everything these days.

Some company, I forget who, said employees would win IIRC a Mercedes in some internal contest. They tried to use the Pepsi, "it was an obvious joke" defense but got shot down as the judge ruled no normal person would think the jet was a real thing but any rational person would think the Mercedes was.
link to original post

You might be thinking of the Hooters Toyota case.

They offered up a “Toyota” as the prize, but it was actually a “Toy Yoda”



The waitress sued and won.
link to original post

Nope. I’ve heard of that one and some radio station said win a new jeep but it was a hot wheels jeep. This was some internal corporate thing. And a Mercedes.

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: DRich

To all AP's out there you need to watch this documentary on Netflix "Pepsi, where is my jet?".

This was the ultimate AP play and Pepsi completely screwed this guy. I had never heard about this but in the 1990's Pepsi had an earn and redeem promotion and completely screwed this guy. I hate to say it, but this made me emotional because of the way this AP got screwed
link to original post

He was not an AP, he was a guy trying to make a jerk out of himself. It is because of his type that we need silly warning labels and disclaimers on everything these days.

Some company, I forget who, said employees would win IIRC a Mercedes in some internal contest. They tried to use the Pepsi, "it was an obvious joke" defense but got shot down as the judge ruled no normal person would think the jet was a real thing but any rational person would think the Mercedes was.
link to original post

You might be thinking of the Hooters Toyota case.

They offered up a “Toyota” as the prize, but it was actually a “Toy Yoda”



The waitress sued and won.
link to original post

Nope. I’ve heard of that one and some radio station said win a new jeep but it was a hot wheels jeep. This was some internal corporate thing. And a Mercedes.

If you want to watch the documentary first, then do not open this spoiler. If you have already watched it or don't care about what ultimately happened, then do read it:

Quote: Mission146

If you want to watch the documentary first, then do not open this spoiler. If you have already watched it or don't care about what ultimately happened, then do read it:

Show Spoiler

The first thing that we have to do is address the relevant aspect (to this case) of what a Summary Judgment does, from:

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/standard-of-review-for-a-summary-judgment-motion-in-federal-court

Quote:

The court’s role is not to weigh the evidence when deciding a motion for summary judgment, but to determine if there is a material fact in dispute. Generally, a trial court deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing any reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

There is also the matter of a set of facts, pursuant to a Summary Judgment, not being held in dispute. The basic facts of this case were quite public and the most meaningful facts (that would benefit the Plaintiff) were not opposed. There was some discovery that might have been done that could have benefitted the Plaintiff's case, but since the judge is a corporate shill, imo, that didn't end up coming into play.

Anyway, the quote above is the most relevant because it means that, in order for Summary Judgment to succeed, the judge is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, which was the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the judge decided to overturn the Plaintiff's case based on the, "Reasonable person," standard, at least, in part.

Even without using that standard, the judge had other excuses reasons to determine that Pepsi was not offering, and had not offered, a legally binding contract. I don't know why that wouldn't have been good enough, but it seems that the judge wanted her pointless pontifications of the, "Reasonable person," standard to make their way into law books, and since the Defendant was a large company in a nationally televised promotion, there was a good chance that would happen.

And, it did happen. Well done, I guess. The case is studied in law schools to this day. Judge Kimba Wood's, (who I think is a worthless corporate shill), legal celebrity is made to this day. She still didn't put O.J. away (Judge Glass), so no daytime television show for you, Kimba, sorry.

Anyway, my opinion is that the, "Reasonable person," ground is the flimsiest aspect of the court's position.

You know and I know that this case is WINNING in a trial by jury! It also seems to me that a jury would be the best candidates to decide what a, "Reasonable person," would or would not believe as opposed to a judge who purports herself to speak for all, "Reasonable people."

I think any number of people who are reasonable would have taken this commercial as a legitimate offer, including many reasonable adults. Of course, neither Pepsi nor Judge Wood ever wanted this to go before a jury because, if that happened, then Pepsi could very well have lost.

Instead we have GOD HERSELF, I mean, Judge Kimba Wood, telling us what reasonable people would, or would not, think. I think a reasonable person would conclude that all of her ex-husbands are much better off now.

link to original post

I hate to disagree with you but I don't believe you are correct in this post above. Lots of reasons I don't have time to write all at the moment.

I will just address the jury aspect first. You would have to get the entire jury to believe this was a valid offer. The jury pool would have been comprised of NY residents as Pepsi got the case situated in NY.

Trust me, that wasn't just for the judge but a sympathetic jury as well. Having handled my own lawsuit I learned about juries and jurisdiction and NY juries aren't sympathetic if they smell a rat of any kind.

I also think most NYC residents would automatically assume the harrier jet was a joke. I remember the ads and thinking where would I park it? Corner of Fifth avenue and 31st?

I only see boondocks Midwestern kids with plenty of land to park a harrier jet in their cornfield would take this seriously. Note one of the persons suing had plenty of land to park a jet.

The jury process involves whittling down biased jurors. "You saw the Pepsi commercial? Did you collect points? Did you think someone could buy the harrier jet? You did. Juror excused"

Most likely the jury select would be non soda drinking or at least non gaming (in the promotion) middle aged people who probably run their own businesses or work for major companies.

At any rate without the trial going to jury no one can say what would have happened.

Also even if the jury had awarded the Harrier jet guaranteed Pepsi would appeal and historically the appellate courts have reduced high sum awards. You can't reduce a harrier jet so the kid would have got some cash anyhow.

I should also point out that summary judgment can be appealed as well. They elected not to. Avennatti says he recognized the case was full of holes. I suspect the judge pointed all those holes out making an appeal a worthless endeavor.

Which brings us to the judge. You are pretty harsh on her. She delivered a fifty page decision which is extremely long. Having just read in the last month dozens of decisions (I am researching for a case of my own) these decisions are wordy and rely on past precedent. A fifty page decision tells me she took the case very serious and did a lot of research. The show zeroed in on one or two aspects. Trust me there was a mountain of case law put into that decision. I will try and read it before I discuss it but that's just how decisions are done in the court.

A jury feels. A judge applies law. My favorite example is the drug dealer caught in the act arrested without his Miranda warnings.

The jury would probably find him guilty based on the evidence. A judge would dismiss on Miranda rights violation.

Even without reading the decision there were outliers they kinda poopooed. For example the "contract" between parties was not the TV promo but the form they filled out for prizes which almost certainly had rules and terms printed on it. They noted they didn't see harrier jet listed so they hand wrote that in. I mean talk about someone not taking the offer serious? How could anyone testify they took the offer serious when realizing it's not listed in the promo book. And writing a contract clause in by one party of a contract does not make the contract valid. Both parties would have to agree. To me that was the moment I knew they had no case whatsoever.

At any rate let me see if I can read the decision for a more detailed breakdown.

Pepsi definitely screwed up in their campaign -- the advertising guy who designed it even explains how the executives overrode his idea and screwed it up.

However, the documentary definitely leans hard into making the kid look like the good guy, but if you take a step back and look at everything objectively, this is one of those cases where I think everyone on both sides is kind of scummy.

He was lucky to be offered the million. That's like two million in today's dollars. I don't feel bad for him.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

If you want to watch the documentary first, then do not open this spoiler. If you have already watched it or don't care about what ultimately happened, then do read it:

Show Spoiler

The first thing that we have to do is address the relevant aspect (to this case) of what a Summary Judgment does, from:

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/standard-of-review-for-a-summary-judgment-motion-in-federal-court

Quote:

The court’s role is not to weigh the evidence when deciding a motion for summary judgment, but to determine if there is a material fact in dispute. Generally, a trial court deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing any reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

There is also the matter of a set of facts, pursuant to a Summary Judgment, not being held in dispute. The basic facts of this case were quite public and the most meaningful facts (that would benefit the Plaintiff) were not opposed. There was some discovery that might have been done that could have benefitted the Plaintiff's case, but since the judge is a corporate shill, imo, that didn't end up coming into play.

Anyway, the quote above is the most relevant because it means that, in order for Summary Judgment to succeed, the judge is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, which was the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the judge decided to overturn the Plaintiff's case based on the, "Reasonable person," standard, at least, in part.

Even without using that standard, the judge had other excuses reasons to determine that Pepsi was not offering, and had not offered, a legally binding contract. I don't know why that wouldn't have been good enough, but it seems that the judge wanted her pointless pontifications of the, "Reasonable person," standard to make their way into law books, and since the Defendant was a large company in a nationally televised promotion, there was a good chance that would happen.

And, it did happen. Well done, I guess. The case is studied in law schools to this day. Judge Kimba Wood's, (who I think is a worthless corporate shill), legal celebrity is made to this day. She still didn't put O.J. away (Judge Glass), so no daytime television show for you, Kimba, sorry.

Anyway, my opinion is that the, "Reasonable person," ground is the flimsiest aspect of the court's position.

You know and I know that this case is WINNING in a trial by jury! It also seems to me that a jury would be the best candidates to decide what a, "Reasonable person," would or would not believe as opposed to a judge who purports herself to speak for all, "Reasonable people."

I think any number of people who are reasonable would have taken this commercial as a legitimate offer, including many reasonable adults. Of course, neither Pepsi nor Judge Wood ever wanted this to go before a jury because, if that happened, then Pepsi could very well have lost.

Instead we have GOD HERSELF, I mean, Judge Kimba Wood, telling us what reasonable people would, or would not, think. I think a reasonable person would conclude that all of her ex-husbands are much better off now.

link to original post

I hate to disagree with you but I don't believe you are correct in this post above. Lots of reasons I don't have time to write all at the moment.

I will just address the jury aspect first. You would have to get the entire jury to believe this was a valid offer. The jury pool would have been comprised of NY residents as Pepsi got the case situated in NY.

Trust me, that wasn't just for the judge but a sympathetic jury as well. Having handled my own lawsuit I learned about juries and jurisdiction and NY juries aren't sympathetic if they smell a rat of any kind.

I also think most NYC residents would automatically assume the harrier jet was a joke. I remember the ads and thinking where would I park it? Corner of Fifth avenue and 31st?

I only see boondocks Midwestern kids with plenty of land to park a harrier jet in their cornfield would take this seriously. Note one of the persons suing had plenty of land to park a jet.

The jury process involves whittling down biased jurors. "You saw the Pepsi commercial? Did you collect points? Did you think someone could buy the harrier jet? You did. Juror excused"

Most likely the jury select would be non soda drinking or at least non gaming (in the promotion) middle aged people who probably run their own businesses or work for major companies.

At any rate without the trial going to jury no one can say what would have happened.

Also even if the jury had awarded the Harrier jet guaranteed Pepsi would appeal and historically the appellate courts have reduced high sum awards. You can't reduce a harrier jet so the kid would have got some cash anyhow.

I should also point out that summary judgment can be appealed as well. They elected not to. Avennatti says he recognized the case was full of holes. I suspect the judge pointed all those holes out making an appeal a worthless endeavor.

Which brings us to the judge. You are pretty harsh on her. She delivered a fifty page decision which is extremely long. Having just read in the last month dozens of decisions (I am researching for a case of my own) these decisions are wordy and rely on past precedent. A fifty page decision tells me she took the case very serious and did a lot of research. The show zeroed in on one or two aspects. Trust me there was a mountain of case law put into that decision. I will try and read it before I discuss it but that's just how decisions are done in the court.

A jury feels. A judge applies law. My favorite example is the drug dealer caught in the act arrested without his Miranda warnings.

The jury would probably find him guilty based on the evidence. A judge would dismiss on Miranda rights violation.

Even without reading the decision there were outliers they kinda poopooed. For example the "contract" between parties was not the TV promo but the form they filled out for prizes which almost certainly had rules and terms printed on it. They noted they didn't see harrier jet listed so they hand wrote that in. I mean talk about someone not taking the offer serious? How could anyone testify they took the offer serious when realizing it's not listed in the promo book. And writing a contract clause in by one party of a contract does not make the contract valid. Both parties would have to agree. To me that was the moment I knew they had no case whatsoever.

At any rate let me see if I can read the decision for a more detailed breakdown.
link to original post

Please don't hate to disagree with me; this conversation would be far less entertaining if we were in lockstep; there really wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I agree about the jury, but are you sure that you would have to get the entire jury to agree? For one thing, I know that a civil case would have a, "Preponderance of the evidence," standard, so that would mean that the jury just has to think (as to the reasonable person question) whether they see it as more likely than not that a reasonable person could construe this as an actual offer. I would assume the members of the jury would base the answer to that question, individually, on their own perceptions of whether or not they are reasonable and/or whether or not they see it as a reasonable offer.

A quick search also tells me that, in New York, the jury does not have to be unanimous, but rather, 5/6ths of the jury must agree for a decision to be rendered.

As far as the, "Land to park a jet," most people have somewhere to park a car, but when there are car giveaways, many of those come with a cash offer, instead. Of course, those cash offers are usually part of the promotional materials, which hurts my argument, but I do have to be fair. Either way, the Plaintiff claims that he had a broader commercial use for this jet, or at least an outline of one and all of his actions would seem to indicate that he wanted the jet.

Next question: Are defense attorneys able to excuse jurors based on the specific subject matter of the case? Ideally, I could see where they would want jurors that hadn't even seen the commercial, but if the potential juror had, would the defense even be allowed to ask that to exclude on that basis. That would be equivalent to demanding of a juror how they are going to find ahead of time. Also, if so, couldn't the Plaintiffs ask the opposite of that question to exclude on the reverse basis?

Anyway, Summary Judgment basically says, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Plaintiff, in this case) there's not even a legal question there that can be brought before a jury. That's the part where I think it's a bit ridiculous. If it goes to a jury and the jury finds in favor of Pepsi, so be it.

One would assume, if the judge actually awarded a Harrier Jet, then the Appellate Court could adjust that to the cash equivalent; I don't know why it would necessarily need to be reduced or what the grounds for such reduction might be.

I read the fifty page decision and am unimpressed. It was meaningless pontificating including on the topic of, "Reasonable person standard," which was the bulk of the decision and, in my opinion, the most flimsy. I'd be in no position to meaningfully dispute any of her other legal positions even on the surface as I wouldn't know.

In Civil cases, you can have what is called a, "Bench Trial," by agreement of the parties. I think you could probably have one in a criminal trial, as well. I can assure you that the Plaintiffs in this case would not be trying to build a compelling case using case law and legal minutiae with a jury of their peers, but that's why you're allowed to have a jury of your peers if you would prefer that. If you're a Plaintiff and think you have a case winning on legal minutiae, then you might prefer a Bench Trial, if you can get one.

Anyway, I just don't like the judge using, "Reasonable person," as one of the standards for not allowing the case to go before a jury. I have no reason to argue with the other stuff and would be lying if I claimed to have a full legal understanding of it.

Quote: gamerfreak

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

Just the opposite. It was 7,000,000 points until he tried to collect and then they raised it to 700,000,000 and added a disclaimer.

In general, I also think past case law gives the judge a way to justify whatever decision they might happen to want to make in a particular case. Otherwise, the courts would never disagree with each other and Appellate Courts would serve no real purpose.

Quote: Mission146

In general, I also think past case law gives the judge a way to justify whatever decision they might happen to want to make in a particular case. Otherwise, the courts would never disagree with each other and Appellate Courts would serve no real purpose.
link to original post

I can't imagine the jury would find against this kid in this case.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

In general, I also think past case law gives the judge a way to justify whatever decision they might happen to want to make in a particular case. Otherwise, the courts would never disagree with each other and Appellate Courts would serve no real purpose.
link to original post

I can't imagine the jury would find against this kid in this case.
link to original post

Cool, then the case would be taught in Marketing classes, instead.

Quote: DRich

Quote: gamerfreak

Further, the documentary revealed the commercial originally said the jet was 700,000,000 points, but they changed it to 7,000,000 to seem more attainable.

Just the opposite. It was 7,000,000 points until he tried to collect and then they raised it to 700,000,000 and added a disclaimer.
link to original post

Both happened.

Internally it was originally 700m on the first never released cut, but then they switched it to 7m for the first aired commercials to apparently make it more readable, and then back to 700m after the lawsuit.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

If you want to watch the documentary first, then do not open this spoiler. If you have already watched it or don't care about what ultimately happened, then do read it:

Show Spoiler

The first thing that we have to do is address the relevant aspect (to this case) of what a Summary Judgment does, from:

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/standard-of-review-for-a-summary-judgment-motion-in-federal-court

Quote:

The court’s role is not to weigh the evidence when deciding a motion for summary judgment, but to determine if there is a material fact in dispute. Generally, a trial court deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing any reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

There is also the matter of a set of facts, pursuant to a Summary Judgment, not being held in dispute. The basic facts of this case were quite public and the most meaningful facts (that would benefit the Plaintiff) were not opposed. There was some discovery that might have been done that could have benefitted the Plaintiff's case, but since the judge is a corporate shill, imo, that didn't end up coming into play.

Anyway, the quote above is the most relevant because it means that, in order for Summary Judgment to succeed, the judge is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, which was the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the judge decided to overturn the Plaintiff's case based on the, "Reasonable person," standard, at least, in part.

Even without using that standard, the judge had other excuses reasons to determine that Pepsi was not offering, and had not offered, a legally binding contract. I don't know why that wouldn't have been good enough, but it seems that the judge wanted her pointless pontifications of the, "Reasonable person," standard to make their way into law books, and since the Defendant was a large company in a nationally televised promotion, there was a good chance that would happen.

And, it did happen. Well done, I guess. The case is studied in law schools to this day. Judge Kimba Wood's, (who I think is a worthless corporate shill), legal celebrity is made to this day. She still didn't put O.J. away (Judge Glass), so no daytime television show for you, Kimba, sorry.

Anyway, my opinion is that the, "Reasonable person," ground is the flimsiest aspect of the court's position.

You know and I know that this case is WINNING in a trial by jury! It also seems to me that a jury would be the best candidates to decide what a, "Reasonable person," would or would not believe as opposed to a judge who purports herself to speak for all, "Reasonable people."

I think any number of people who are reasonable would have taken this commercial as a legitimate offer, including many reasonable adults. Of course, neither Pepsi nor Judge Wood ever wanted this to go before a jury because, if that happened, then Pepsi could very well have lost.

Instead we have GOD HERSELF, I mean, Judge Kimba Wood, telling us what reasonable people would, or would not, think. I think a reasonable person would conclude that all of her ex-husbands are much better off now.

link to original post

I hate to disagree with you but I don't believe you are correct in this post above. Lots of reasons I don't have time to write all at the moment.

I will just address the jury aspect first. You would have to get the entire jury to believe this was a valid offer. The jury pool would have been comprised of NY residents as Pepsi got the case situated in NY.

Trust me, that wasn't just for the judge but a sympathetic jury as well. Having handled my own lawsuit I learned about juries and jurisdiction and NY juries aren't sympathetic if they smell a rat of any kind.

I also think most NYC residents would automatically assume the harrier jet was a joke. I remember the ads and thinking where would I park it? Corner of Fifth avenue and 31st?

I only see boondocks Midwestern kids with plenty of land to park a harrier jet in their cornfield would take this seriously. Note one of the persons suing had plenty of land to park a jet.

The jury process involves whittling down biased jurors. "You saw the Pepsi commercial? Did you collect points? Did you think someone could buy the harrier jet? You did. Juror excused"

Most likely the jury select would be non soda drinking or at least non gaming (in the promotion) middle aged people who probably run their own businesses or work for major companies.

At any rate without the trial going to jury no one can say what would have happened.

Also even if the jury had awarded the Harrier jet guaranteed Pepsi would appeal and historically the appellate courts have reduced high sum awards. You can't reduce a harrier jet so the kid would have got some cash anyhow.

I should also point out that summary judgment can be appealed as well. They elected not to. Avennatti says he recognized the case was full of holes. I suspect the judge pointed all those holes out making an appeal a worthless endeavor.

Which brings us to the judge. You are pretty harsh on her. She delivered a fifty page decision which is extremely long. Having just read in the last month dozens of decisions (I am researching for a case of my own) these decisions are wordy and rely on past precedent. A fifty page decision tells me she took the case very serious and did a lot of research. The show zeroed in on one or two aspects. Trust me there was a mountain of case law put into that decision. I will try and read it before I discuss it but that's just how decisions are done in the court.

A jury feels. A judge applies law. My favorite example is the drug dealer caught in the act arrested without his Miranda warnings.

The jury would probably find him guilty based on the evidence. A judge would dismiss on Miranda rights violation.

Even without reading the decision there were outliers they kinda poopooed. For example the "contract" between parties was not the TV promo but the form they filled out for prizes which almost certainly had rules and terms printed on it. They noted they didn't see harrier jet listed so they hand wrote that in. I mean talk about someone not taking the offer serious? How could anyone testify they took the offer serious when realizing it's not listed in the promo book. And writing a contract clause in by one party of a contract does not make the contract valid. Both parties would have to agree. To me that was the moment I knew they had no case whatsoever.

At any rate let me see if I can read the decision for a more detailed breakdown.
link to original post

Please don't hate to disagree with me; this conversation would be far less entertaining if we were in lockstep; there really wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I agree about the jury, but are you sure that you would have to get the entire jury to agree? For one thing, I know that a civil case would have a, "Preponderance of the evidence," standard, so that would mean that the jury just has to think (as to the reasonable person question) whether they see it as more likely than not that a reasonable person could construe this as an actual offer. I would assume the members of the jury would base the answer to that question, individually, on their own perceptions of whether or not they are reasonable and/or whether or not they see it as a reasonable offer.

A quick search also tells me that, in New York, the jury does not have to be unanimous, but rather, 5/6ths of the jury must agree for a decision to be rendered.

As far as the, "Land to park a jet," most people have somewhere to park a car, but when there are car giveaways, many of those come with a cash offer, instead. Of course, those cash offers are usually part of the promotional materials, which hurts my argument, but I do have to be fair. Either way, the Plaintiff claims that he had a broader commercial use for this jet, or at least an outline of one and all of his actions would seem to indicate that he wanted the jet.

Next question: Are defense attorneys able to excuse jurors based on the specific subject matter of the case? Ideally, I could see where they would want jurors that hadn't even seen the commercial, but if the potential juror had, would the defense even be allowed to ask that to exclude on that basis. Also, if so, couldn't the Plaintiffs ask the opposite of that question to exclude on the reverse basis?

Anyway, Summary Judgment basically says, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Plaintiff, in this case) there's not even a legal question there that can be brought before a jury. That's the part where I think it's a bit ridiculous. If it goes to a jury and the jury finds in favor of Pepsi, so be it.

One would assume, if the judge actually awarded a Harrier Jet, then the Appellate Court could adjust that to the cash equivalent; I don't know why it would necessarily need to be reduced or what the grounds for such reduction might be.

I read the fifty page decision and am unimpressed. It was meaningless pontificating including on the topic of, "Reasonable person standard," which was the bulk of the decision and, in my opinion, the most flimsy. I'd be in no position to meaningfully dispute any of her other legal positions even on the surface as I wouldn't know.

In Civil cases, you can have what is called a, "Bench Trial," by agreement of the parties. I think you could probably have one in a criminal trial, as well. I can assure you that the Plaintiffs in this case would not be trying to build a compelling case using case law and legal minutiae with a jury of their peers, but that's why you're allowed to have a jury of your peers if you would prefer that. If you're a Plaintiff and think you have a case winning on legal minutiae, then you might prefer a Bench Trial, if you can get one.

Anyway, I just don't like the judge using, "Reasonable person," as one of the standards for not allowing the case to go before a jury. I have no reason to argue with the other stuff and would be lying if I claimed to have a full legal understanding of it.
link to original post

I recall in my trial in NYC I had to have the full jury if I recall. Maybe I am recalling wrong. It was four years ago. Five sixths is still a lot of jurors to convince.

The attorneys are trying to find mutually agreed unbiased parties. Both sides will ask disqualifying questions.

I was called as a juror right before Covid. It was a case about gun possession. One person claimed the guns belonged to their friend.

Their attorney asked for all teachers in the jury pool to raise their hands. They got called up and he asked if they had a situation where someone in their class had done wrong but they couldn't tell who would they punish the entire class. All the teachers agreed they would hold the entire class accountable.

And just like that all the teachers were dismissed.

So that should give you an example of what they will do when trying to disqualify jurors.

Quote: darkoz

My favorite example is the drug dealer caught in the act arrested without his Miranda warnings.

The jury would probably find him guilty based on the evidence. A judge would dismiss on Miranda rights violation.

That is absolute nonsense and shows your lack of understanding of the law. If a defendant is not Mirandized, the prosecution simply can't enter any in-custody statements made by the defendant. That's it. Other evidence beyond the defendant's statements (which there alway is) such as physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, testimony of arresting officers, video evidence etc IS allowed. Certainly in such a case there would not be a dismissal.

(Quote clipped to remove excessive quote in quote)

Quote: DarkOz

I recall in my trial in NYC I had to have the full jury if I recall. Maybe I am recalling wrong. It was four years ago. Five sixths is still a lot of jurors to convince.

The attorneys are trying to find mutually agreed unbiased parties. Both sides will ask disqualifying questions.

I was called as a juror right before Covid. It was a case about gun possession. One person claimed the guns belonged to their friend.

Their attorney asked for all teachers in the jury pool to raise their hands. They got called up and he asked if they had a situation where someone in their class had done wrong but they couldn't tell who would they punish the entire class. All the teachers agreed they would hold the entire class accountable.

And just like that all the teachers were dismissed.

So that should give you an example of what they will do when trying to disqualify jurors.

I'm not sure what the nature of your trial was. It probably varies by state, anyway, but I am sure of the 5/6ths thing as that was easy to look up and re-verify.

I think that they can ask disqualifying questions, but are they allowed to ask questions that speak directly to the specific legal subject matter of the case? I'm not saying they're not allowed; I'm saying that I don't know. It would seem strange, to me, that they would be allowed to essentially ask for a decision in advance.

When it comes to the example with teachers, the question spoke to a general mindset and not to the specific subject matter of the case. With that, I'm not sure that the advertisement could be played during jury selection (which is, literally, presenting evidence) and then demanding of jurors what their verdict would be and disqualifying them on that. I think you could ask questions such as, "Should all ads without a disclaimer be taken seriously?," or questions like that, but again, I am not claiming to know.

Quote: Mission146

(Quote clipped to remove excessive quote in quote)

Quote: DarkOz

I recall in my trial in NYC I had to have the full jury if I recall. Maybe I am recalling wrong. It was four years ago. Five sixths is still a lot of jurors to convince.

The attorneys are trying to find mutually agreed unbiased parties. Both sides will ask disqualifying questions.

I was called as a juror right before Covid. It was a case about gun possession. One person claimed the guns belonged to their friend.

Their attorney asked for all teachers in the jury pool to raise their hands. They got called up and he asked if they had a situation where someone in their class had done wrong but they couldn't tell who would they punish the entire class. All the teachers agreed they would hold the entire class accountable.

And just like that all the teachers were dismissed.

So that should give you an example of what they will do when trying to disqualify jurors.

I'm not sure what the nature of your trial was. It probably varies by state, anyway, but I am sure of the 5/6ths thing as that was easy to look up and re-verify.

I think that they can ask disqualifying questions, but are they allowed to ask questions that speak directly to the specific legal subject matter of the case? I'm not saying they're not allowed; I'm saying that I don't know. It would seem strange, to me, that they would be allowed to essentially ask for a decision in advance.

When it comes to the example with teachers, the question spoke to a general mindset and not to the specific subject matter of the case. With that, I'm not sure that the advertisement could be played during jury selection (which is, literally, presenting evidence) and then demanding of jurors what their verdict would be and disqualifying them on that. I think you could ask questions such as, "Should all ads without a disclaimer be taken seriously?," or questions like that, but again, I am not claiming to know.
link to original post

In my case with the casino jurors were asked if they gambled and if they had ever done so at the casino in question I was suing.

So they do try to ascertain what connection you have to the material evidence to be presented.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

My favorite example is the drug dealer caught in the act arrested without his Miranda warnings.

The jury would probably find him guilty based on the evidence. A judge would dismiss on Miranda rights violation.

That is absolute nonsense and shows your lack of understanding of the law. If a defendant is not Mirandized, the prosecution simply can't enter any in-custody statements made by the defendant. That's it. Other evidence beyond the defendant's statements (which there alway is) such as physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, testimony of arresting officers, video evidence etc IS allowed. Certainly in such a case there would not be a dismissal.
link to original post

I stand corrected.

I have been studying up on litigation not criminal so I misspoke.

Now I need to find a better example than Miranda lol.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

(Quote clipped to remove excessive quote in quote)

Quote: DarkOz

I recall in my trial in NYC I had to have the full jury if I recall. Maybe I am recalling wrong. It was four years ago. Five sixths is still a lot of jurors to convince.

The attorneys are trying to find mutually agreed unbiased parties. Both sides will ask disqualifying questions.

I was called as a juror right before Covid. It was a case about gun possession. One person claimed the guns belonged to their friend.

Their attorney asked for all teachers in the jury pool to raise their hands. They got called up and he asked if they had a situation where someone in their class had done wrong but they couldn't tell who would they punish the entire class. All the teachers agreed they would hold the entire class accountable.

And just like that all the teachers were dismissed.

So that should give you an example of what they will do when trying to disqualify jurors.

I'm not sure what the nature of your trial was. It probably varies by state, anyway, but I am sure of the 5/6ths thing as that was easy to look up and re-verify.

I think that they can ask disqualifying questions, but are they allowed to ask questions that speak directly to the specific legal subject matter of the case? I'm not saying they're not allowed; I'm saying that I don't know. It would seem strange, to me, that they would be allowed to essentially ask for a decision in advance.

When it comes to the example with teachers, the question spoke to a general mindset and not to the specific subject matter of the case. With that, I'm not sure that the advertisement could be played during jury selection (which is, literally, presenting evidence) and then demanding of jurors what their verdict would be and disqualifying them on that. I think you could ask questions such as, "Should all ads without a disclaimer be taken seriously?," or questions like that, but again, I am not claiming to know.
link to original post

In my case with the casino jurors were asked if they gambled and if they had ever done so at the casino in question I was suing.

So they do try to ascertain what connection you have to the material evidence to be presented.
link to original post

I don't think that even disagrees with what I said. Whether or not they gambled, or if they had at that casino, I would assume, has little to do with the specific legal question to be decided. Maybe the other side just figured that gamblers are mostly losing players so would be more likely to be biased against the casino, but that doesn't speak to a specific legal fact or question of the case.

Any lawyers in the house? Both DarkOz and I speak whereof we know nothing; please help us!

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft
link to original post

So cannot fly and cannot get parts for

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft
link to original post

So cannot fly and cannot get parts for
link to original post

Why can't it fly?

Not jet rockets for flying. It can have those. It can't have explosive rockets for firing on targets.

And why wouldn't they be able to purchase parts?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft
link to original post

So cannot fly and cannot get parts for
link to original post

That's not what darkoz said, that's not what the documentary says, and that's not what the law says.

You can legally own a fully functioning and flying Harrier jet, minus armaments and things like radar jamming.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft
link to original post

So cannot fly and cannot get parts for
link to original post

Why can't it fly?

Not jet rockets for flying. It can have those. It can't have explosive rockets for firing on targets.

And why wouldn't they be able to purchase parts?
link to original post

Can’t fly because you have to be trained and checked out in it. Were you gonna get that?

Really, ask again “would an idiot think this was a serious offer.”

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

The Netflix doc addresses this.

Apparently if you can afford a harrier jet there isn't any law against owning one as long as it's been demilitarized. No rockets etc.

That makes it just owning a fancy aircraft
link to original post

So cannot fly and cannot get parts for
link to original post

Why can't it fly?

Not jet rockets for flying. It can have those. It can't have explosive rockets for firing on targets.

And why wouldn't they be able to purchase parts?
link to original post

Can’t fly because you have to be trained and checked out in it. Were you gonna get that?

Really, ask again “would an idiot think this was a serious offer.”
link to original post

They were going to enter it into air shows which presumably meant they intended to hire professionally trained pilots.

I would call that "flying" the jet.

Did you actually watch the show where literally every argument you just made was answered or did you just decide to comment without seeing it?

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

1.) First of all, a civilian can own a demilitarized version of the aircraft, so that contention is immediately moot.

2.) Secondly, are you such an expert on Harrier jets that you would know that both:

A. Getting parts for it is impossible

AND:

B. No civilian, regardless of how skilled, could build a part needed for such an aircraft?

3.) He might not have been able to fly it that day, but I believe flying lessons are available to anyone. He also doesn't necessarily have to be the pilot.

I think it's also telling that whether or not he could even possess such an aircraft and, if so, whether or not there would be any way for him to utilize said aircraft was not a component of the judge's decision is telling. Pepsi did not attempt to argue that he couldn't have believed the offer was serious for those reasons, or, if they did, it was not part of the Summary Judgment as it must construe all facts in favor of the non-moving party and that fact had not been demonstrated.

In fact, that the aircraft was used in the commercial in ways that were highly ridiculous was part of the decision, but not that you functionally could not own one.

(Because it's not a fact)

You actually can own a Harrier as a civilian, though only one (American) has ever done so, I have watched a documentary in the past year on this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nalls

He gave them up in the last couple years though for the same reason the military has long given up on them, they are expensive to maintain (and basically require a fulltime crew if you are doing regular flights). And, this is somebody who is already trained to fly them (and has connections to mechanics and people experienced with Harrier parts). Somebody just given a Harrier on the street would never realistically be able to operate it unless they just had absurd amounts of money to dump into the project....

There is a reason Harriers are not common (and by not common I mean do not exist at all ) even in rich private war plane collector fleets.... They are just not realistic to own, even if you are using them to make money (like Nalls), they are a sink and there are better planes..... There are lots of discontinued fighter planes that are "more realistic" (comparatively) to own. Harriers are just not economical, not even in their heyday. (If the military does not think they are economical that is saying a lot....)

And, yes I am aware the USMC still uses a few that are due to be replaced soon (but this is the extreme outlier and for very specific operations where such take offs are needed). But, its a safe generalization to say the military has moved on from the harrier.

So, you can legally own a Harrier, but it just does not happen (except for that one example above).

Quote: gamerfreak

https://www.everettaero.com/zh806.html
link to original post

That is not an American seller. The one American buyer they reference (and link to) is Art Nalls. He still remains the only (private) American owner in history.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: AZDuffman

I think this calls for using the idiot test.

For those who do not know if you are unsure of doing something you ask yourself “would an idiot do this” and if the answer is “yes” then you do not do that thing.

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?


I believe an idiot would.
link to original post

1.) First of all, a civilian can own a demilitarized version of the aircraft, so that contention is immediately moot.

2.) Secondly, are you such an expert on Harrier jets that you would know that both:

A. Getting parts for it is impossible

AND:

B. No civilian, regardless of how skilled, could build a part needed for such an aircraft?

3.) He might not have been able to fly it that day, but I believe flying lessons are available to anyone. He also doesn't necessarily have to be the pilot.
link to original post

1. COUNTRIES have an impossible time getting and making spare parts for this kind of military aircraft. COUNTRIES! Meaning a government with immense resources at its disposal. For an individual it is beyond comprehension. We are not talking going to the NAPA parts store or seeing what is available on eBay or at some swap meet.

2. You are talking hundreds of hours at a bare minimum of flight school, not just going to the airport and getting lessons in a 152. The keys could not just be handed over. Every aircraft is unique and a pilot has to know everything about it.

3. None of this matters as any person of average intelligence and even remotely competent could see the thing was put there as a joke. The guy who tried to claim it is the king of trolls, I will give him that. But people claiming that "it could have been serious" are why the USA is such a screwed up place anymore. The kind of people who say "it could have been taken serious" are the kind that need the warning label "do not drive vehicle while windshield sunshade is in windshield."

It is the same as when people said the WWF needed to issue a press release saying Vince McMahon was not really blown up on "Monday Night Raw" so the investors would not worry. Falls under "COME ON!"

Quote: AZDuffman

1. COUNTRIES have an impossible time getting and making spare parts for this kind of military aircraft. COUNTRIES! Meaning a government with immense resources at its disposal. For an individual it is beyond comprehension. We are not talking going to the NAPA parts store or seeing what is available on eBay or at some swap meet.

2. You are talking hundreds of hours at a bare minimum of flight school, not just going to the airport and getting lessons in a 152. The keys could not just be handed over. Every aircraft is unique and a pilot has to know everything about it.
link to original post

You're completely missing the point. This was your original quote:

Quote: AZDuffman

So, would an idiot think Pepsi was giving away a jet that civilians cannot own, cannot fly, and cannot get parts for?
link to original post

A civilian CAN legally own a Harrier jet. Period.

A civilian CAN fly a Harrier jet if he has been properly trained on it. Period.

A civilian CAN legally buy parts for a Harrier jet if he has a source. Period.

It's irrelevant how difficult those things are. That's another topic of discussion that no one is arguing against. No one is saying flying a Harrier or getting parts for it is easy. The issue is that your original statement was just plain factually incorrect, and you keep moving the goalposts and changing the subject like you have done before when proven wrong.