Pepsi, where is my jet?

Quote: AZDuffman

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!"
link to original post

What about the people who advocate for going out and getting things yourself, then criticizing those who try?

He found a loophole. It was a flimsy loophole. Crucially, he only found that loophole (if the documentary is true and people are being honest) after trying to come up with a feasible and cost-effective way of getting 7,000,000 points WITHOUT a loophole. I don't know that I am inclined to take even that at face value, but I'll do it for the sake of argument.

Honestly, if it had gone to jury and I was on that jury, I would have decided in favor of PepsiCo, but I do think there was enough there to take to jury. Ultimately, my decision would have come down to the item not appearing in the catalog or on the order sheet. If Pepsi had pushed the joke that far, then I would have found it impossible not to side with the Plaintiff.

Pepsi thought there was enough there that they offered him a million bucks, after all. I don't think they even went after him for attorney's fees.

Because there was no clear path to actually redeeming the Harrier jet, I wouldn't have considered it an offer.

A friend of mine won a week in Vegas on a radio show contest. Somebody from the station organized the trip with him, going over the available days and who he could bring with him.
A few days before he is supposed to leave, National Airlines went bankrupt, and his flights were canceled. He is told the hotel is non-refundable, and if he doesn't get out there on his own, he loses everything, including the $1,000 cash part.
The radio station says they were agents and aren't responsible for anything.
After a few months, my friend will take only the cash, but the station won't give him anything.
They ended up in small claims court, and the station sent some junior exec who insisted they only ran the contest. The sponsors were in charge of providing the prizes. The Judge didn't go for it and ordered the station to pay the court max of $3,000.

If I were on the jury in either case, I'd give him the cash equivalent.

I enjoyed the first episode but lost interest during the second episode.

Quote: Mission146

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

My boss owned over 20 military jets and he was never in the military. Still owns a MIG-29

From my understanding, the kid's interest peaked when he was having a conversation with another coach who said that he and the guys at work were pooling Pepsi points to get the jet. I do believe there were many reasonable people who honestly thought you could earn enough points to get the jet or = value they just assumed getting enough points would be extremely difficult/ nearly impossible and not worth it. Most people probably had no clue what the value of that jet was or thought about what the technicalities of owning one would be.


If the offer itself has to be clear and reasonable and you're not sure if it's a joke or not, then there doesn't seem to be a contract.

At the time they sent the check, did they really believe it was a legitimate offer? I think not.

I do think everyone who bought Pepsi based on believing they could get a Jet should've been offered a refund.

I think Pepsi profited from an ad that was taken seriously by some and they should be held liable somehow.

Most importantly, I do think they should have had their day in court.

Quote: AxelWolf

From my understanding, the kid's interest peaked when he was having a conversation with another coach who said that he and the guys at work were pooling Pepsi points to get the jet. I do believe there were many reasonable people who honestly thought you could earn enough points to get the jet or = value they just assumed getting enough points would be extremely difficult/ nearly impossible and not worth it. Most people probably had no clue what the value of that jet was or thought about what the technicalities of owning one would be.


If the offer itself has to be clear and reasonable and you're not sure if it's a joke or not, then there doesn't seem to be a contract.

At the time they sent the check, did they really believe it was a legitimate offer? I think not.

I do think everyone who bought Pepsi based on believing they could get a Jet should've been offered a refund.

I think Pepsi profited from an ad that was taken seriously by some and they should be held liable somehow.

Most importantly, I do think they should have had their day in court.
link to original post

Should they have got a refund even after drinking the Pepsi?

The precedent would be set and it would be disastrous.

Patrons who buy cereal because of a box top offer would demand refunds if the offer wasn't honored even after eating all the cereal.

And yes advantage players would sue for Freeplay not honored after gambling.

They brought up the possibility that Pepsi ends the program at any time. They initially thought it too risky to purchase millions in Pepsi cans just for Pepsi to say it's over. So they knew that Pepsi could simply end the offer at any time and not honor the points redemption.

At any rate they didn't BUY the Pepsi. They tried the loophole of buying$700,000 worth of points. Pepsi returned the check.

So they deserved a refund on what? Pepsi really was being generous when they offered a million bucks. The kid made a big mistake.

Quote: AxelWolf

From my understanding, the kid's interest peaked when he was having a conversation with another coach who said that he and the guys at work were pooling Pepsi points to get the jet. I do believe there were many reasonable people who honestly thought you could earn enough points to get the jet or = value they just assumed getting enough points would be extremely difficult/ nearly impossible and not worth it. Most people probably had no clue what the value of that jet was or thought about what the technicalities of owning one would be.


If the offer itself has to be clear and reasonable and you're not sure if it's a joke or not, then there doesn't seem to be a contract.

At the time they sent the check, did they really believe it was a legitimate offer? I think not.

I do think everyone who bought Pepsi based on believing they could get a Jet should've been offered a refund.

I think Pepsi profited from an ad that was taken seriously by some and they should be held liable somehow.

Most importantly, I do think they should have had their day in court.
link to original post

They had their day in Court and they lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

They didn't have their day in court, though. I think Axelwolf is implying that it should have been heard by a jury and argued in open court, rather than in briefs, motions and memorandums (memoranda?).

Quote: Mission146

They didn't have their day in court, though. I think Axelwolf is implying that it should have been heard by a jury and argued in open court, rather than in briefs, motions and memorandums (memoranda?).
link to original post

Not every frivolous lawsuit gets to go to a jury.
I think had the guy managed to get the points, it would have been one thing, but sending in a check for $700,000 to get a $30,000,000 dollar anything doesn't pass the smell test.
I think Pepsi missed an opportunity. They should have given the kid a job as a brand ambassador and flown him into the Super Bowl Halftime show in a Harrier or something,

Quote: darkoz

[

At any rate they didn't BUY the Pepsi. They tried the loophole of buying$700,000 worth of points. Pepsi returned the check.

So they deserved a refund on what? Pepsi really was being generous when they offered a million bucks. The kid made a big mistake.

Darkoz, I am very surprised at your opinion.

Quote: DRich

Quote: darkoz

[

At any rate they didn't BUY the Pepsi. They tried the loophole of buying$700,000 worth of points. Pepsi returned the check.

So they deserved a refund on what? Pepsi really was being generous when they offered a million bucks. The kid made a big mistake.

Darkoz, I am very surprised at your opinion.
link to original post

That doesn't surprise me. People misunderstand AP as someone trying to get something for nothing. The fact Casinos refer to their gambling incentives as "free" when in actuality you have to pay in advance to get the offers throws people off (the IRS rightly calls it a rebate on prior purchases).

I believe in what is fair. If I gamble thousands on a Player card to earn offers it's not fair for the casino to profit and then deny the offers. But the kids check was returned AND they were still going to give him a million bucks. It was a perfect AP play already. He should have accepted it.

Personally I would have saw it as an opportunity similar to what Bill Ryan suggested. I would have said give me the million AND a commensurate salary to be your spokesperson. I will promote Pepsi everywhere. Like Bill suggest he could have flown into a stadium in a mock Harrier for Pepsi.

And something tells me they might have liked that.

At any rate I am not against him gaming the system. But he got greedy and was already being offered a million without the points.

Quote: darkoz

Personally I would have saw it as an opportunity similar to what Bill Ryan suggested. I would have said give me the million AND a commensurate salary to be your spokesperson. I will promote Pepsi everywhere. Like Bill suggest he could have flown into a stadium in a mock Harrier for Pepsi.

I would have went to Coke and made a martyr commercial about how Pepsi screwed me and now I only drink Coke. I think if that commercial was made Pepsi would be kicking themselves for not giving the kid $7 million.

I also would have told Pepsi that I understand about the Harrier and would gladly accept a Gulfstream instead.

The Execs at Coke would have blown the kid off, as they were about to embark on the bestest marketing campaign ever- New Coke.

Quote: billryan

The Execs at Coke would have blown the kid off, as they were about to embark on the bestest marketing campaign ever- New Coke.
link to original post

I believe New Coke was many years before that.

I have posted about this at one point but my gf would collect coke rewards. They had somewhat great prizes like movie tickets and gift cards. Gift cards being the main bread and butter of the operation. Anyways the college i was attending had coke machines everywhere. Coke is everywhere around where i live as well. The recycling bins would be filled to the brim with the coke bottles. We had to have multiple accounts just to make this work and there was a limit to the amount you could enter in a period of time. We had tons of coke caps even after they changed the rewards to strictly contest based rewards. Your reward points would only allow you to enter contests to win prized which is the dumbest thing ever and tells me that they are technically a gambling platform that is legal based o the fact that you aren't spending money directly to win the game of chance.

Quote: Mission146

They didn't have their day in court, though. I think Axelwolf is implying that it should have been heard by a jury and argued in open court, rather than in briefs, motions and memorandums (memoranda?).
link to original post

Yes, that's what I meant ?

Quote: darkoz

The kid made a big mistake.
link to original post

He did? I don't know about that. How did his life turn out? He seems to be healthy, happy, and doing ok for himself. We can't know how his life would've turned out had he taken the million, but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be talking about it now had he done so. Normally, a 20-year-old with a sudden influx of cash doesn't make the best decisions. Remember, he actually had plans on making money from owning this jet. If you think he made a big mistake not taking the Million then you can assume his decision-making isn't all that great.

Will all this lead to any significant financial gain? I assume it will.

He turned down a million dollars because he thought he'd get more. He made a huge mistake, as he got nothing. Any conjecture about what he would have done with it doesn't change that.

Quote: billryan

He turned down a million dollars because he thought he'd get more. He made a huge mistake, as he got nothing. Any conjecture about what he would have done with it doesn't change that.
link to original post

It is easy to say it was a mistake in retrospect. Just like betting on black is a mistake in roulette if red comes up.

Quote: billryan

He turned down a million dollars because he thought he'd get more. He made a huge mistake, as he got nothing. Any conjecture about what he would have done with it doesn't change that.
link to original post

I absolutely disagree. You would have to consider his odds of getting more vs getting nothing. I can't imagine anyone suggesting he should have taken the first offer, especially when he had a chance at a 32-million-dollar payday vs 1 million. You also have to consider other money-making opportunities related to the situation. There's value in publicly, there's value in the story, there's value in connections, and other things related to this.

I'm sure people told him it was a dumb Idea in the first place. Had he listened to them he would've never been put in the situation to be offered a Million dollars. Do you really think It's a huge mistake chasing a dream at 20?

A million dollars would have let him pursue his goals. Yes, I think he made a mistake. He overplayed his hand and got nothing. Had he taken the money and split it with his investors, he'd have a nice sum plus eager investors looking for his next idea. Instead, he left them with nothing and no reason to invest with him in the future.

I have now watched the first two episodes and know the outcome. It's easy to say the kid should have taken the million, in retrospect. Maybe episodes 3 and 4 will shed light on this, but I could see holding out for more. Pepsi was only offering 3.1% of the value of the jet. Perhaps it was a low-ball offer and they would go higher.

I'm in the camp that Pepsi was in breach of contract and should have lost.

Quote: billryan

A million dollars would have let him pursue his goals. Yes, I think he made a mistake. He overplayed his hand and got nothing. Had he taken the money and split it with his investors, he'd have a nice sum plus eager investors looking for his next idea. Instead, he left them with nothing and no reason to invest with him in the future.
link to original post

Your own words....."Any conjecture about what he would have done with it doesn't change that."

At the time(not knowing what we know now) was it a bad decision mathematically?

If you want to use conjecture and what's currently happening, I say it worked out for him so it wasn't a bad decision.

Would he go back and trade his current situation with an unknown situation for one million? I bet he wouldn't. Therefore he made the right decision.

Quote: Wizard

I have now watched the first two episodes and know the outcome. It's easy to say the kid should have taken the million, in retrospect. Maybe episodes 3 and 4 will shed light on this, but I could see holding out for more. Pepsi was only offering 3.1% of the value of the jet. Perhaps it was a low-ball offer and they would go higher.

I'm in the camp that Pepsi was in breach of contract and should have lost.
link to original post

i havent watched the documentary but i remember the commercial.

i thought pepsi's offer was legit.
i don't understand the ruling that any 'reasonable' person would have thought the jet was an exaggeration and not to be considered seriously?

i also thought a millionaire trust fund baby would have given 1 pepsi cap + a check to add a jet to his toy collection.

Quote: Wizard

I have now watched the first two episodes and know the outcome. It's easy to say the kid should have taken the million, in retrospect. Maybe episodes 3 and 4 will shed light on this, but I could see holding out for more. Pepsi was only offering 3.1% of the value of the jet. Perhaps it was a low-ball offer and they would go higher.

I'm in the camp that Pepsi was in breach of contract and should have lost.
link to original post

I agreed with you 100%. Bill, even though he said we can't use conjecture is looking at it from what actually happened as opposed to the right mathematical move at the time of the decision. Mathematically at the time, I think he made the correct decision. Given his current situation, he made the right choice.

Quote: billryan

A million dollars would have let him pursue his goals. Yes, I think he made a mistake. He overplayed his hand and got nothing. Had he taken the money and split it with his investors, he'd have a nice sum plus eager investors looking for his next idea. Instead, he left them with nothing and no reason to invest with him in the future.
link to original post

I believe it was just one investor who he became friends with before this adventure. What i thought was interesting was his friend/investor made the kid write a full business proposal on it including how they would earn money using the jet for air shows and promotional events.

https://www.salon.com/2022/11/19/pepsi-wheres-my-jet-netflix-pepsi-point-scandal/

"Per Leonard's calculations, he would need to drink 190 Pepsi cans a day for 100 years in order to attain the required 7 million Pepsi points. That wasn't feasible for him or his family, so Leonard formulated a business plan to speed up the process. He also enlisted the help of Todd Hoffman, who was Leonard's climbing-buddy-turned-investor and 20 years his senior.



Leonard's multimillion-dollar business deal outlined labor costs, transportation costs and storage costs, which all totaled to a whopping $4.3 million. Leonard determined that he needed to buy 1.4 million 12-pack cans of Pepsi, which is over 16 million cans. Those cans would also take up about 600,000 cubic feet of storage space, meaning Leonard would need to store them across various warehouses. Leonard proposed acquiring six warehouses across six metropolitan areas and hiring his own workers, who would cut and store the Pepsi labels for him.



As impressive as his business plan was, Leonard later found an easier way to earn his points in a short amount of time. Per the contest rules — which were outlined in fine print in a Pepsi catalog — Leonard could simply buy his points by paying $0.10 a point. For 7 million Pepsi points, Leonard had to pay $700,008.50, which included an additional $10 shipping and handling fee. So Leonard, with Hoffman's help, wrote the check and delivered it to PepsiCo's headquarters."

"

Quote: DRich

"Per Leonard's calculations, he would need to drink 190 Pepsi cans a day for 100 years in order to attain the required 7 million Pepsi points.

I keep hearing this, I think his mom said they couldn't keep up or something like that. I guess no one figured out they didn't actually have to drink it. I'm sure they could've sold it to small businesses or something.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: DRich

"Per Leonard's calculations, he would need to drink 190 Pepsi cans a day for 100 years in order to attain the required 7 million Pepsi points.

I keep hearing this, I think his mom said they couldn't keep up or something like that. I guess no one figured out they didn't actually have to drink it. I'm sure they could've sold it to small businesses or something.
link to original post

They had to drink it because the cans were the points.

Like buying cereal and cutting off the box tops and then reselling them. It would be deceiving to the downstream customers who could not cut out their boxtops.

But in this case you needed the Pepsi cans. In the first episode they mention that the market for used Pepsi cans was pretty worthless.

It's probably where the purchase of Pepsi points for ten cents came in. They figured someone would just buy used Pepsi cans from people for ten cents (offer double the nickel soda can return and collect Pepsi cans that way). So Pepsi made that plan ridiculous by just offering the ten cents alternative.

Quote: darkoz

It's probably where the purchase of Pepsi points for ten cents came in. They figured someone would just buy used Pepsi cans from people for ten cents (offer double the nickel soda can return and collect Pepsi cans that way). So Pepsi made that plan ridiculous by just offering the ten cents alternative.
link to original post

I bought a lot of Wendy's cups when they ran a promotion for free airline flights. I collected 8 free roundtrip flights.

Quote: 100xOdds

i thought pepsi's offer was legit.
i don't understand the ruling that any 'reasonable' person would have thought the jet was an exaggeration and not to be considered seriously?
link to original post

I thought they meant it as a joke and episode two goes into Pepsi's thinking in making the ad. However, an offer is an offer.

Maybe a bad comparison, but if you offer a bet or challenge here, it gets accepted, and then you retract the offer, you'll probably serve a 30-day suspension as punishment.

Episode 2 also shows how Pepsi modified the ad to change the 7 million to 700 million Pepsi points. After that, they modified it again, added a "(just kidding)" in small print at the end. This suggests to me an admission of guilt their original ad was faulty.

Quote: DRich

I bought a lot of Wendy's cups when they ran a promotion for free airline flights. I collected 8 free roundtrip flights.

Wow.

I remember the Pepsi promotion AND the ad with the Harrier jet in it, and I did Coke points for a while (always a bit of a hassle, the code inside the carton was printed with a crappy dot printer and it was very hard to read). I don't even remember if I got any decent prizes. Maybe some Shutterfly picture books.

But I don't remember the airline flights Wendy's promo.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: 100xOdds

i thought pepsi's offer was legit.
i don't understand the ruling that any 'reasonable' person would have thought the jet was an exaggeration and not to be considered seriously?
link to original post

I thought they meant it as a joke and episode two goes into Pepsi's thinking in making the ad. However, an offer is an offer.

Maybe a bad comparison, but if you offer a bet or challenge here, it gets accepted, and then you retract the offer, you'll probably serve a 30-day suspension as punishment.

Episode 2 also shows how Pepsi modified the ad to change the 7 million to 700 million Pepsi points. After that, they modified it again, added a "(just kidding)" in small print at the end. This suggests to me an admission of guilt their original ad was faulty.
link to original post

Well even on WOV when an offer is made both sides then discuss the terms and have to agree.

In the Pepsi case, they met and the terms were no Harrier jet but a million bucks. Hey!

Also I think ridiculous "offers" are part of the general vernacular. For example if I say "I bet you a million bucks that XYZ" the average person realizes I am not putting myself at risk for a million dollar wager. It's just an expression similar to "I laughed so hard I busted a gut" or "if I don't make this work I'm gonna kill myself"

Don't Casinos do a variation of false advertising. "Come to the winners circle" etc. Can we sue when we arrive and don't win? Point to the images of men with hot chicks on their arms and celebrating their win and say that's what we were promised in the ad?

In the `1980s, one of the frozen food dinners( Lean Cuisine?) offered 200 miles on TWA per box. You could get the meals on sale for under $2, and a free roundtrip to Puerto Rico was 20,000 points so a hundred meals gave you a free trip. Then one week, Walbaums had them on sale for .99 cents. My sister bought a hundred, gave me the boxtops as my birthday present, and donated the dinners to a food bank she volunteered at.

Before Eastern went bankrupt, they offered a weekend of $12 flights from NY to either Boston or Washington.
Each flight was worth 2500 frequent flyer points. Initially, my friends had intended to fly to Washington for the weekend, but we flew all weekend, racking up 12 flight segments for $120 and getting enough points for a free trip to Ireland.

Quote: JohnnyQ

But I don't remember the airline flights Wendy's promo.
link to original post

If I remember it correctly 32 soft drink cups from Wendy's got you a free one way ticket on Airtran. After collecting some and buying some I had over 500 cups. People were dumpster diving and selling the cups on Ebay. Ebay is where I bought quite a few of them.

Quote: darkoz

Also I think ridiculous "offers" are part of the general vernacular. For example if I say "I bet you a million bucks that XYZ" the average person realizes I am not putting myself at risk for a million dollar wager. It's just an expression similar to "I laughed so hard I busted a gut" or "if I don't make this work I'm gonna kill myself"

Point taken. However, those are all figures of speech and not made by a company worth billions.

One might a comparison to the "pound of flesh" offer from The Merchant of Venice.

Quote:

Don't Casinos do a variation of false advertising. "Come to the winners circle" etc. Can we sue when we arrive and don't win? Point to the images of men with hot chicks on their arms and celebrating their win and say that's what we were promised in the ad?
link to original post

I'd need to see the ad, but nobody ever said the hot chick came with the women's circle. I think it's implied you have to provide her yourself.

Reminds me of the ad campaign for the Casablanca in Mesquite. They are always replete with hot women, but if you go there you'll find the median age of the clientele is about 65.

Quote: darkoz

That doesn't surprise me. People misunderstand AP as someone trying to get something for nothing. The fact Casinos refer to their gambling incentives as "free" when in actuality you have to pay in advance to get the offers throws people off (the IRS rightly calls it a rebate on prior purchases).

I believe in what is fair. If I gamble thousands on a Player card to earn offers it's not fair for the casino to profit and then deny the offers. But the kids check was returned AND they were still going to give him a million bucks. It was a perfect AP play already. He should have accepted it.

Personally I would have saw it as an opportunity similar to what Bill Ryan suggested. I would have said give me the million AND a commensurate salary to be your spokesperson. I will promote Pepsi everywhere. Like Bill suggest he could have flown into a stadium in a mock Harrier for Pepsi.

And something tells me they might have liked that.

At any rate I am not against him gaming the system. But he got greedy and was already being offered a million without the points.
link to original post

AP is trying to get something for nothing. The, "Work," if you even want to call it that, provides no useful social benefit. It does not create a product, nor does it provide anyone with a service. It is a socially neutral activity that generates nothing and produces exactly zero greater societal value.

That said, many AP's use some amount of the money they make to do things that contribute to society which the casino, presumably, wouldn't.

If you believed in what was fair, then you would care about the casino's terms and conditions that generally stipulate that offers are not transferable and speak to whether or not you can use other peoples' cards. Don't worry, I don't care about casino's Terms and Conditions, either.

That said, it does seem a bit hypocritical to want to hold them to the letter of their offers when you're actively violating their Terms and Conditions and most of the money you make is in so doing. That is, unless, every individual physically plays on the card in their name and each individual does all the pick ups on their cards.

I agree he should have taken the million. I don't even think he should have asked for anything else. Why should they make him a spokesmen? Definitely a missed opportunity for Coke.

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

He turned down a million dollars because he thought he'd get more. He made a huge mistake, as he got nothing. Any conjecture about what he would have done with it doesn't change that.
link to original post

It is easy to say it was a mistake in retrospect. Just like betting on black is a mistake in roulette if red comes up.
link to original post

Perhaps.

I might not be able to definitely call it a mistake, but what I can say is present-day me takes the money and twenty year old me also takes the money. Here's a guaranteed million, which means I put it at risk by not taking it; why would I ever do that?

(Quote below clipped deliberately)

Quote: AxelWolf

I can't imagine anyone suggesting he should have taken the first offer
link to original post

He should have taken the first offer.

It was a million dollars for doing almost nothing. What did he do? He found some loophole in the points system and flew back and forth to Florida a few times. Makes his expenses back and huge profits to boot.

In my opinion, one million dollars was not only more than fair, it was more than anyone should ever realistically expect to be offered in such a situation. The only reason they threw such a high number out there is because, being a corporation, they are going to use top tier lawyers and the costs to litigate may well exceed the million. There's also the matter of, in my opinion, quite possibly bribing the judge to make sure it never sees a jury.

Quote: 100xOdds

Quote: Wizard

I have now watched the first two episodes and know the outcome. It's easy to say the kid should have taken the million, in retrospect. Maybe episodes 3 and 4 will shed light on this, but I could see holding out for more. Pepsi was only offering 3.1% of the value of the jet. Perhaps it was a low-ball offer and they would go higher.

I'm in the camp that Pepsi was in breach of contract and should have lost.
link to original post

i havent watched the documentary but i remember the commercial.

i thought pepsi's offer was legit.
i don't understand the ruling that any 'reasonable' person would have thought the jet was an exaggeration and not to be considered seriously?

i also thought a millionaire trust fund baby would have given 1 pepsi cap + a check to add a jet to his toy collection.
link to original post

My guess is that the ruling is Intellectual Property of PepsiCo through their subsidiary, Judge Whatever Her Name Was (I forgot), bought and paid for.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: DRich

"Per Leonard's calculations, he would need to drink 190 Pepsi cans a day for 100 years in order to attain the required 7 million Pepsi points.

I keep hearing this, I think his mom said they couldn't keep up or something like that. I guess no one figured out they didn't actually have to drink it. I'm sure they could've sold it to small businesses or something.
link to original post

I actually thought about that while watching the documentary. I would just put signs all over town and put a classified that says you can buy cubes of Pepsi from me for $1 less, per cube, than whatever the grocery store is charging in their ad. No limit!

Quote: Wizard

I thought they meant it as a joke and episode two goes into Pepsi's thinking in making the ad. However, an offer is an offer.

Maybe a bad comparison, but if you offer a bet or challenge here, it gets accepted, and then you retract the offer, you'll probably serve a 30-day suspension as punishment.

Episode 2 also shows how Pepsi modified the ad to change the 7 million to 700 million Pepsi points. After that, they modified it again, added a "(just kidding)" in small print at the end. This suggests to me an admission of guilt their original ad was faulty.
link to original post

I disagree as to this point because the case was pending.

In other words, I don't think them trying to avoid the possibility of future cases proves guilt for something that was done in the past. For comparison, if you have a slip and fall at someone's business that could well have been the fault of the person who slipped, the business taking remedial action to prevent further slips doesn't necessarily prove that they were solely responsible for the slip that already happened.

IOW, making a premises MORE safe doesn't necessarily mean it was unsafe to the extent to rise to a legal liability before that.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: DRich

"Per Leonard's calculations, he would need to drink 190 Pepsi cans a day for 100 years in order to attain the required 7 million Pepsi points.

I keep hearing this, I think his mom said they couldn't keep up or something like that. I guess no one figured out they didn't actually have to drink it. I'm sure they could've sold it to small businesses or something.
link to original post

I actually thought about that while watching the documentary. I would just put signs all over town and put a classified that says you can buy cubes of Pepsi from me for $1 less, per cube, than whatever the grocery store is charging in their ad. No limit!
link to original post

Pepsi and Coke have exclusive deals with retailers. They often give stores free coolers, and in return, they get exclusive distribution.
Buying Pepsi from a different source might void the agreements.

In part 2, as I recall, the number Pepsi offered was $750,000. However, after that, it was discussed as if it were a million.

It's also worth noting that I'm sure the backer and the lawyer would have taken a big slice out of the settlement. My interpretation of the show was that they were tempted to to accept it, but wanted to take on Pepsi for the challenge and principle.

Quote: Mission146

Perhaps.

I might not be able to definitely call it a mistake, but what I can say is present-day me takes the money and twenty year old me also takes the money. Here's a guaranteed million, which means I put it at risk by not taking it; why would I ever do that?
link to original post

If someone offered you a million dollars today or an opportunity to call a fair coin flip and win $10 million if you are correct. Would you take the sure thing or opt for the gamble?

Quote: DRich

If someone offered you a million dollars today or an opportunity to call a fair coin flip and win $10 million if you are correct. Would you take the sure thing or opt for the gamble?
link to original post

Sure thing. There's nothing that I would want to do with ten million dollars that I couldn't already do with the million.

Heck, you could give me 100k and I'd end up looking at 80k of it not knowing what to do with it because, by the time I get to 80k, there won't be anything that I even remotely want.

Quote: Wizard

In part 2, as I recall, the number Pepsi offered was $750,000. However, after that, it was discussed as if it were a million.

It's also worth noting that I'm sure the backer and the lawyer would have taken a big slice out of the settlement. My interpretation of the show was that they were tempted to to accept it, but wanted to take on Pepsi for the challenge and principle.
link to original post

The investors put up the money; I'm sure they would get most of it but would be willing to back his next play. That's where he went wrong. He threw away his investors, and not many twenty-olds get a second shot at that.

The seminal case that we studied in law school on this topic would be Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892) EWCA Civ 1.

In the late 19th century, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. in England advertised that it was so confident that its flu remedy would prevent sickness that it offered a 100 pound (equal to at least $12,000. today) reward to anyone who used its carbolic smoke ball and contracted influenza. Around that time influenza was a deadly disease that had carried away over a million people.

The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. The ball was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The tube would be inserted into a user's nose and the ball would be squeezed at the bottom to release the vapors.

Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times a day according to the manufacturer’s instructions for nearly two months until she contracted the flu.

Her demand for the 100 pound reward ended up in court where the company tried to argue among other defenses to contract law that there was no serious offer and that the advertisement was “mere puff.” Advertising puffery involves exaggerated, boastful, subjective claims that are used to entice customers into making purchases. The claims are typically so exaggerated, no reasonable person would believe them to be literally true.

The courts held otherwise and found that there was a serious offer made to the specific users who bought the product and used it, and that their buying and using the product constituted acceptance of the offer. The court held that these acts by the buyers created a unilateral contract.

To complete a normal (bilateral) contract, there must be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration must be exchanged.

In a unilateral contract the "consideration" needed to complete the contract is a detriment that one side incurs - in this case, the inconvenience users suffered in paying for and using the product, and the benefit to the company was that more people bought the balls in reliance of the company's claim.

As well, the company’s having deposited the 100 pounds for the reward with a bank, and having advertised that they had done so, manifested their intent to perform on the contract. This deposit of funds - ready to pay - was also a key aspect of this case.

After losing the case, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. continued to market their product and make the same claim, increasing the reward to 200 pounds.



At least some elements of Carlill were present in this Pepsi matter - in fact the judge in the PepsiCo case cited Carlill, writing,

"Long a staple of law school curricula, Carbolic Smoke Ball owes its fame not merely to 'the comic and slightly mysterious object involved'... but also to its role in developing the law of unilateral offers."

but the Pepsi case, unlike Carlill, was held to represent mere puff - and that no serious ("reasonable") person could have expected to receive the fighter jet prize.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: DRich

If someone offered you a million dollars today or an opportunity to call a fair coin flip and win $10 million if you are correct. Would you take the sure thing or opt for the gamble?
link to original post

Sure thing. There's nothing that I would want to do with ten million dollars that I couldn't already do with the million.

Heck, you could give me 100k and I'd end up looking at 80k of it not knowing what to do with it because, by the time I get to 80k, there won't be anything that I even remotely want.
link to original post

Wow, that surprises me. Good for you. Obviously I would choose to gamble. With a million dollars I could not afford to retire in a lifestyle that I would be comfortable with. With $10 million I could. I am lazy, I want to retire.

Better late than never, MDawg.

Great post! Thank you for lending your legal understanding to the thread! Speaking of, where you at, MrV?

Quote: DRich

Wow, that surprises me. Good for you. Obviously I would choose to gamble. With a million dollars I could not afford to retire in a lifestyle that I would be comfortable with. With $10 million I could. I am lazy, I want to retire.
link to original post

I'm extremely lazy. My lifestyle is just extremely cheap to maintain. I'll probably be screwed in thirty years, unless I'm still able to substantially do at least some of the same stuff I do now.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

Quote: DRich

If someone offered you a million dollars today or an opportunity to call a fair coin flip and win $10 million if you are correct. Would you take the sure thing or opt for the gamble?
link to original post

Sure thing. There's nothing that I would want to do with ten million dollars that I couldn't already do with the million.

Heck, you could give me 100k and I'd end up looking at 80k of it not knowing what to do with it because, by the time I get to 80k, there won't be anything that I even remotely want.
link to original post

Wow, that surprises me. Good for you. Obviously I would choose to gamble. With a million dollars I could not afford to retire in a lifestyle that I would be comfortable with. With $10 million I could. I am lazy, I want to retire.
link to original post

It's just AP thinking.

An AP would rather take Freeplay chips for example and bet doey/don't with a hedge for a guaranteed profit than gamble it all on one side for a bigger payday.

Bigger rewards with possibility of losing everything or smaller rewards with guaranteed win. Most AP's I feel take the guaranteed win.