Pepsi, where is my jet?
December 5th, 2022 at 11:15:39 AM
permalink
More speculation/ conjure.Quote: billryanQuote: WizardIn 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.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 5th, 2022 at 11:18:15 AM
permalink
But it's still the wrong mathematical decision.Quote: Mission146Quote: 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
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 5th, 2022 at 11:24:06 AM
permalink
Quote: darkoz
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.
link to original post
I appreciate the defense, but I think both could be argued as AP thinking.
I can be guaranteed the million, so let's call that as good as having a million. I can risk my million for 10x on a fair coin flip. Pays are effectively on a, "For one," basis because I do not end up with eleven million if I call heads and it lands heads, thus, I either profit nine million or lose a million.
(9000000 * .5) - (1000000 * .5) = $4,000,000
So, I'm rejecting $4,000,000 in +EV in order to just keep my million. The EV of taking the coin flip is quadruple what I am just choosing to keep.
Mathematically, that seems like a bad decision, but that's until we get into a number of economic principles.
Perhaps the most fundamental of the concepts is, "Certainty Equivalent," which is simply to say what amount of EV would there have to be for me to effectively risk a million dollars rather than just take the million dollars. If CE sounds subjective, that's because it is, but you can make certain assumptions about yourself and your risk tolerance to create problems to decide how you want to structure investments and positions based upon your personal CE.
In my case, I think it's pretty well-known that I have a tendency to caution and am naturally pretty risk-averse, by gambling enthusiast standards, anyway. With that, the EV to risk my entire million all at once is going to have to automatically be through the roof as it is.
There's also the question of Wealth Effect, of which I have virtually zero Wealth Effect, because I have never been wealthy. One million dollars is certainly FAR more than I have ever possessed at once and is actually more, not accounting for dramatic inflation, than I could ever imagine my net worth being. I'm simply somewhat lazy and also don't care about material possessions or, "Winning the game of life," to ever be motivated enough to make this kind of money.
Generally speaking, if something goes really well for me, I tend to get extremely lazy until such time that I need money again.
So, as I said, I couldn't even think of a way to spend $100,000, because there is nothing I want. DRich's query could have been 100k v 10M and, while I admit that I would at least have to think about that risk, I would probably take the 100k.
Also, in terms of Kelly Criterion, Kelly says I couldn't make DRich's bet anyway even if I had another million backing the guaranteed million I am refusing up...which doesn't account for the fact that getting the million would make my net worth only slightly more than one million as it is. LOL
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 5th, 2022 at 11:24:39 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfBut it's still the wrong mathematical decision.Quote: Mission146Quote: 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
link to original post
Kelly says it's correct for me to take the million, actually. It's the, 'Wrong,' EV decision, yes.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 5th, 2022 at 11:29:48 AM
permalink
When Hedging vs not on something like roulette or sports, you are only giving up a few percent. Would you hedge on roulette if you were giving up 25%? what about 50%?Quote: darkozQuote: DRichQuote: Mission146Quote: 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.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 5th, 2022 at 12:48:46 PM
permalink
Quote: darkoz
Bigger rewards with possibility of losing everything or smaller rewards with guaranteed win. Most AP's I feel take the guaranteed win.
Shocking!!! I can't imagine many AP's giving up that much EV. I guess if it was $100 million or a billion I could get on board because $100 million would be much more than I would ever need. I guess it is all relative.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 5th, 2022 at 1:19:15 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Bigger rewards with possibility of losing everything or smaller rewards with guaranteed win. Most AP's I feel take the guaranteed win.
Shocking!!! I can't imagine many AP's giving up that much EV. I guess if it was $100 million or a billion I could get on board because $100 million would be much more than I would ever need. I guess it is all relative.
link to original post
What expected value? This is the sort of case every law school student learns about and is a classic case of puffery. Any lawyer worth their fee would have told him to settle. He screwed himself and his money folks.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
December 5th, 2022 at 1:25:04 PM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Bigger rewards with possibility of losing everything or smaller rewards with guaranteed win. Most AP's I feel take the guaranteed win.
Shocking!!! I can't imagine many AP's giving up that much EV. I guess if it was $100 million or a billion I could get on board because $100 million would be much more than I would ever need. I guess it is all relative.
link to original post
What expected value? This is the sort of case every law school student learns about and is a classic case of puffery. Any lawyer worth their fee would have told him to settle. He screwed himself and his money folks.
link to original post
All I know about the case is the Netflix documentary but I did not in any way see this as a case of puffery. Maybe the real facts are different than presented in the documentary.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 5th, 2022 at 2:12:28 PM
permalink
coke rewards:Quote: JohnnyQWow.Quote: DRichI bought a lot of Wendy's cups when they ran a promotion for free airline flights. I collected 8 free roundtrip flights.
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.
link to original post
- got movie tickets, free popcorn + soda
- got $25 walmart giftcards
- got free 12pack of coke, limit 2 per promo. (got 6 since i also used my work addr and my parents addr)
then some supermarkets had buy two 12packs, get 2 free. sweet.. 4 free 12 packs
there were probably a couple more decent redemptions but the above is what i remember
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
December 5th, 2022 at 2:55:15 PM
permalink
Quote: MDawgThe seminal case that we studied in law school on this topic would be Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892) EWCA Civ 1.
link to original post
Thank you! Good post.
I'm sure, as an attorney, you could argue either side. But had you been the judge, which the case was decided by, how would you have ruled and why?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2022 at 2:56:40 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichAll I know about the case is the Netflix documentary but I did not in any way see this as a case of puffery. Maybe the real facts are different than presented in the documentary.
link to original post
In episode 2, they say the Pepsi lawyers argued, in part, the ad campaign was obviously puffery. I specifically remember the word being used.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2022 at 3:11:53 PM
permalink
I think there is one aspect not talked about.
The common law we are all familiar with is that any company can "refuse service" to any patron. Usually applied to trespassing on property the same should be true of any service.
Contract law is also pretty clear. If a business has already excepted payment the business cannot THEN refuse service (trust me it's been tried and adjudicated in the courts by more than just Casinos.)
This case therefore is interesting because the patron did not purchase the soda. Instead they sent in the check to purchase the points.
I see no difference between Pepsi returning the check as their form of "denial of service" anymore than placing a bet at the blackjack table and having the dealer push the chips back.
Just my opinion and I can see if this went to trial that angle being argued to the jury. And then if they lost bringing it up on appeal. Applying the common law it would not have surprised me to see the jury verdict overturned.
No purchase, no service, no right to gift.
The common law we are all familiar with is that any company can "refuse service" to any patron. Usually applied to trespassing on property the same should be true of any service.
Contract law is also pretty clear. If a business has already excepted payment the business cannot THEN refuse service (trust me it's been tried and adjudicated in the courts by more than just Casinos.)
This case therefore is interesting because the patron did not purchase the soda. Instead they sent in the check to purchase the points.
I see no difference between Pepsi returning the check as their form of "denial of service" anymore than placing a bet at the blackjack table and having the dealer push the chips back.
Just my opinion and I can see if this went to trial that angle being argued to the jury. And then if they lost bringing it up on appeal. Applying the common law it would not have surprised me to see the jury verdict overturned.
No purchase, no service, no right to gift.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 5th, 2022 at 4:30:20 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozI see no difference between Pepsi returning the check as their form of "denial of service" anymore than placing a bet at the blackjack table and having the dealer push the chips back.
link to original post
I think $700,000 check included some Pepsi points. The idea being if someone were close to having enough point for something, he could just buy the rest. If they show the form again on the show I'll freeze the frame and check. However, I don't think it's very relevant.
As to the blackjack comparison, I would say the bet isn't accepted until the dealer deals the first card. In other words, the casino has more leverage in who they allow to play. If any business could weasel out of an offer with the "denial of service" argument, businesses would falsely advertise right and left.
Keep in mind I'm not an attorney. I'm hoping MDawg chimes in again.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2022 at 5:57:29 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: darkozI see no difference between Pepsi returning the check as their form of "denial of service" anymore than placing a bet at the blackjack table and having the dealer push the chips back.
link to original post
I think $700,000 check included some Pepsi points. The idea being if someone were close to having enough point for something, he could just buy the rest. If they show the form again on the show I'll freeze the frame and check. However, I don't think it's very relevant.
As to the blackjack comparison, I would say the bet isn't accepted until the dealer deals the first card. In other words, the casino has more leverage in who they allow to play. If any business could weasel out of an offer with the "denial of service" argument, businesses would falsely advertise right and left.
Keep in mind I'm not an attorney. I'm hoping MDawg chimes in again.
link to original post
I'm prepping for a case and just read through a lot of decisions over the last 100+ years.
They all follow the same pattern and in fact "quote" prior decisions as you go to support the next decision.
No fee for service and the vendor has not just the right to refuse service but the "ABSOLUTE right to refuse service" exact words in these decisions.
Refusing service after the vendor has collected a fee is the opposite. They always lose for depriving the customer.
Exception in the former is protected class (can't deny service over race religion etc) and in the latter for disruptive or illegal behavior (buying a ticket doesn't give license to harass customers, be drunk and disorderly or commit crimes)
There have been a lot of cases over 100 years and they are pretty consistent in the decisions.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 5th, 2022 at 9:04:02 PM
permalink
I just watched part 3, which does not advance the story much. It does show how the lawsuit gets a lot of media attention and Pepsi uses the argument that the lawsuit is frivolous, opportunistic, and a shake down. This happens at the same time a woman was awarded over $2 million from McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and comparisons are made to that. However, legally, things remain at a standstill.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2022 at 11:16:58 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI just watched part 3, which does not advance the story much. It does show how the lawsuit gets a lot of media attention and Pepsi uses the argument that the lawsuit is frivolous, opportunistic, and a shake down. This happens at the same time a woman was awarded over $2 million from McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and comparisons are made to that. However, legally, things remain at a standstill.
link to original post
That comparison REALLY annoyed me about that doc.
The McDonald's lawsuit was NOT frivolous. The comparison without the explanation of the hot coffee lawsuit was misleading and dropped the value of the show in my opinion
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 6th, 2022 at 1:16:42 AM
permalink
People think some lady was out looking for a payday and got paid 2 million because her coffee was too hot.Quote: WizardI just watched part 3, which does not advance the story much. It does show how the lawsuit gets a lot of media attention and Pepsi uses the argument that the lawsuit is frivolous, opportunistic, and a shake down. This happens at the same time a woman was awarded over $2 million from McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and comparisons are made to that. However, legally, things remain at a standstill.
link to original post
If people did some research into the hot coffee lawsuit they might change their view and come to the conclusion she deserved every penny and McDonald's deserved to pay.
IIRC she was burnt badly and she only ever wanted her medical bills paid, but they refused. There's much more to it.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 3:10:11 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: DRichAll I know about the case is the Netflix documentary but I did not in any way see this as a case of puffery. Maybe the real facts are different than presented in the documentary.
link to original post
In episode 2, they say the Pepsi lawyers argued, in part, the ad campaign was obviously puffery. I specifically remember the word being used.
link to original post
Hodgepodge of thoughts below.
Fwiw, To me, the prime example of puffery is “Best pizza in town!” You can’t sue the local pizzeria for false advertising even if the pizza sucks. It’s not quantifiable or tied to something tangible like “Robert DeNero says Best Pizza in town!” Or “New York Times rated #1 pizza in town”. If a pizzeria says that falsely, that’s not puffery.
To me, 7,000,000 is not an obviously joke number. It’s a tangible number in a way that “100 billion trillion” is not. Both are real numbers but I’m much more inclined to treat 7,000,000 as a considered, deliberately chosen number rather than “100 billion trillion”. Homes were selling for 7 million in the early 90s. People were earning $7m a year in salary.
This is a point made in the doc, but I believe Pepsi really wanted kids to think the jet was obtainable. Maybe it’s absurd to an adult but to kids who can pester their parents for the soda they want, I think Pepsi deliberately was trying to trick them. This is largely why being unable to get discovery and take depositions was such a let down. Who knows what would have come out? To be fair, this was pre email and email is the prime place people say things that get them in legal trouble but still could have been a lot of dirt uncovered if they were allowed discovery.
I thought of this similarly to the guy who figured out how to amass a million airline miles cheaply by buying pudding snacks (maybe it was jello). I recall he donated all the food too. That was probably at about the same time. He got his miles.
FWIW, I remember the ad at the time. I was younger than the guy in the documentary. Promotions like this were common. Marlboro did a similar promo. My father smoked a ton and we kept the proof of purchase to get stuff. I got a nice dartboard from Marlboro. He probably sacrificed some of his life to get that but it’s still in my parents house today.
If anyone gives you 10,000 to 1 on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.
December 6th, 2022 at 3:27:39 AM
permalink
One final thought: large companies make horrifically bad decisions all the time. The fact that the jet was worth like $30m and the kid thought he could get it for $700k isn’t absurd to me.
Around the 80s, an airline offered a lifetime pass for as many first class flights as you want forever. I believe the cost was like $250k. Dozens of people paid the money, including Mark Cuban. Airline lost tens of millions of dollars on that promotion. Horrible financial decision. They cumulatively lost more than Pepsi would have lost If they had to give the kid the jet or the cAsh equivalent of the jet.
To be fair, I am sympathetic to the argument that the jet wasn’t in the brochure and wasn’t the focus of the promo in the way that the lifetime first class pass was. That is very true and a valid point.
I do think that If the kid somehow did acquire 7m points without having to buy any, there would have been a lot more pressure on Pepsi. His reliance would be much more clear. Although the rules allowed buying points, I think that let the judge and others see this more as gamesmanship than “what an entrepreneurial go getter who worked hard for this!”
Around the 80s, an airline offered a lifetime pass for as many first class flights as you want forever. I believe the cost was like $250k. Dozens of people paid the money, including Mark Cuban. Airline lost tens of millions of dollars on that promotion. Horrible financial decision. They cumulatively lost more than Pepsi would have lost If they had to give the kid the jet or the cAsh equivalent of the jet.
To be fair, I am sympathetic to the argument that the jet wasn’t in the brochure and wasn’t the focus of the promo in the way that the lifetime first class pass was. That is very true and a valid point.
I do think that If the kid somehow did acquire 7m points without having to buy any, there would have been a lot more pressure on Pepsi. His reliance would be much more clear. Although the rules allowed buying points, I think that let the judge and others see this more as gamesmanship than “what an entrepreneurial go getter who worked hard for this!”
If anyone gives you 10,000 to 1 on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.
December 6th, 2022 at 5:08:30 AM
permalink
Quote: TinManOne final thought: large companies make horrifically bad decisions all the time. The fact that the jet was worth like $30m and the kid thought he could get it for $700k isn’t absurd to me.
Around the 80s, an airline offered a lifetime pass for as many first class flights as you want forever. I believe the cost was like $250k. Dozens of people paid the money, including Mark Cuban. Airline lost tens of millions of dollars on that promotion. Horrible financial decision. They cumulatively lost more than Pepsi would have lost If they had to give the kid the jet or the cAsh equivalent of the jet.
To be fair, I am sympathetic to the argument that the jet wasn’t in the brochure and wasn’t the focus of the promo in the way that the lifetime first class pass was. That is very true and a valid point.
I do think that If the kid somehow did acquire 7m points without having to buy any, there would have been a lot more pressure on Pepsi. His reliance would be much more clear. Although the rules allowed buying points, I think that let the judge and others see this more as gamesmanship than “what an entrepreneurial go getter who worked hard for this!”
link to original post
The airline reneged and cancelled the lifetime pass.
https://medium.com/counterarts/the-disaster-of-the-american-airlines-aairpass-c8f21460b6c5
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 6th, 2022 at 8:18:00 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf
If people did some research into the hot coffee lawsuit they might change their view and come to the conclusion she deserved every penny and McDonald's deserved to pay.
IIRC she was burnt badly and she only ever wanted her medical bills paid, but they refused. There's much more to it.
link to original post
Yeah... she sued to just have her medical bills paid, which was about $20,000, after McDonald's offered her $800 for medical expenses. At the trial a representative from McDonald's literally admitted on the stand under oath that their coffee was served at almost 200*F, and that it could burn the mouth and throat if consumed immediately. The jury awarded her almost $3mm, the judge reduced it to under a million, and it was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
December 6th, 2022 at 8:22:00 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfPeople think some lady was out looking for a payday and got paid 2 million because her coffee was too hot.Quote: WizardI just watched part 3, which does not advance the story much. It does show how the lawsuit gets a lot of media attention and Pepsi uses the argument that the lawsuit is frivolous, opportunistic, and a shake down. This happens at the same time a woman was awarded over $2 million from McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and comparisons are made to that. However, legally, things remain at a standstill.
link to original post
If people did some research into the hot coffee lawsuit they might change their view and come to the conclusion she deserved every penny and McDonald's deserved to pay.
IIRC she was burnt badly and she only ever wanted her medical bills paid, but they refused. There's much more to it.
link to original post
There’s another great doc on this called Hot Coffee. It’s free on Tubi and Pluto streaming
December 6th, 2022 at 8:25:21 AM
permalink
I don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
December 6th, 2022 at 8:53:14 AM
permalink
Quote: gamerfreakI don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
link to original post
Even his rich friend who was bankrolling everything, after a while was just like, "I don't want to have anything else to do with this, you do whatever you want." You could tell he was just like "Dumb kid should have taken the money." LOL
December 6th, 2022 at 9:04:02 AM
permalink
I don’t blame him for not taking the offer. The first offer is never the best offer. If Pepsi were offering $1m, they were authorized to go higher. He could have counter offered at $3 or $4mill rather than walk away. Pepsi would likely have come back with a $1.3-1.5m offer. An easy 30-50% increase for a few more hours of time. Requesting non-binding mediation would have been a better approach than just walking away. Mediators can be great.
For the $1m offer, After splitting with the backer and paying the lawyer and paying taxes he might have walked away with like $250k. $250k is great but it’s not “you’re set for life money”. He took a swing and hoped to walk away with millions. Legit don’t need to work anymore money. I can’t fault him for that.
And if he did get past the motion to dismiss and was entitled to take discovery, the offer def would have gone up to at least $2-3mil easily. That would have been 10 cents on the dollar of the claim and worth it not to spend money on lawyers to deal with discovery and potential bad press (I’m sure they would have demanded an NDA)
For the $1m offer, After splitting with the backer and paying the lawyer and paying taxes he might have walked away with like $250k. $250k is great but it’s not “you’re set for life money”. He took a swing and hoped to walk away with millions. Legit don’t need to work anymore money. I can’t fault him for that.
And if he did get past the motion to dismiss and was entitled to take discovery, the offer def would have gone up to at least $2-3mil easily. That would have been 10 cents on the dollar of the claim and worth it not to spend money on lawyers to deal with discovery and potential bad press (I’m sure they would have demanded an NDA)
If anyone gives you 10,000 to 1 on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.
December 6th, 2022 at 9:22:51 AM
permalink
I believe he said he was living a good life and didn't need the money therefore, he didn't want anything to do with any shenanigans as far as playing dirty in the press, he didn't want to be looking over his shoulders type of thing.Quote: TigerWuQuote: gamerfreakI don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
link to original post
Even his rich friend who was bankrolling everything, after a while was just like, "I don't want to have anything else to do with this, you do whatever you want." You could tell he was just like "Dumb kid should have taken the money." LOL
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 9:29:06 AM
permalink
I was wondering if that was something they concocted to make it seem legit.Quote: gamerfreakI don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
link to original post
They could never admit it was a money grab, the kid had to play the innocent act to gain sympathy in order to have a shot.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 9:32:51 AM
permalink
Quote: gamerfreakI don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
I have a few friends that own jets and they would agree with you. I do like the concept of Netjets but even that is still expensive for us peasants.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 6th, 2022 at 9:43:01 AM
permalink
A few years ago I watched a documentary on yachts. They were interviewing one of the billionaire owners, and even he basically said, "Yachts are a waste of money. You have to REALLY love yachts to own one, because it's a huge money sink." Yachts and jets can cost millions of dollars a year for upkeep.
Obviously I'm looking at this in hindsight, but $250k in the early '90s is like $500k now, so probably not "set for life" money, but it was definitely "very early retirement" money.
Quote: TinMan
For the $1m offer, After splitting with the backer and paying the lawyer and paying taxes he might have walked away with like $250k. $250k is great but it’s not “you’re set for life money”. He took a swing and hoped to walk away with millions. Legit don’t need to work anymore money. I can’t fault him for that.
link to original post
Obviously I'm looking at this in hindsight, but $250k in the early '90s is like $500k now, so probably not "set for life" money, but it was definitely "very early retirement" money.
December 6th, 2022 at 9:44:07 AM
permalink
Quote: DRichQuote: gamerfreakI don’t think the kid was as smart as everyone was making him out to be.
His plan to use the jet as a business was absurd and would never work. The only rational thing to do would be to flip it. Private airplane ownership is almost always -EV.
I have a few friends that own jets and they would agree with you. I do like the concept of Netjets but even that is still expensive for us peasants.
link to original post
I also know a few people with jets and smaller prop aircraft. It’s astounding what they cost to operate and maintain. I often wonder how airlines make any money.
December 6th, 2022 at 9:47:19 AM
permalink
Charing extra for bags (-:.Quote: gamerfreak. I often wonder how airlines make any money.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 10:00:04 AM
permalink
Quote: TinManIf Pepsi were offering $1m, they were authorized to go higher.
link to original post
The original offer was $750,000. Source: NY Post.
On another issue, can anyone make out the fine print at the 0:26 point in this commercial?
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2022 at 10:07:08 AM
permalink
Quote: gamerfreak
I often wonder how airlines make any money.
link to original post
i read an article recently that many airlines do not make money flying. Basically they act as banks when you book a ticket they collect the money and earn interest on it until you actually fly.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 6th, 2022 at 10:35:29 AM
permalink
Quote: darkozThis case therefore is interesting because the patron did not purchase the soda.
link to original post
The kid sent in 15 labels and $700,000.
Source: CBS News
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7XliS0DYRo
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2022 at 11:24:40 AM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
On another issue, can anyone make out the fine print at the 0:26 point in this commercial?
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc
link to original post
Offer not available in all areas. See details on specially marked packages.
December 6th, 2022 at 11:27:33 AM
permalink
Quote: TigerWuSee details on specially marked packages.
link to original post
That seems to be relevant to me. I don't think the "specially marked packages" mentioned the Harrier jet.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2022 at 11:46:27 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: TigerWuSee details on specially marked packages.
link to original post
That seems to be relevant to me. I don't think the "specially marked packages" mentioned the Harrier jet.
link to original post
Even more relevant is they had to fill out the form for which gifts they wanted to redeem and Harrier Jet wasn't on the form so they wrote it in.
Lol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 6th, 2022 at 4:49:41 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozLol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
link to original post
You should watch the show. That was one of Pepsi's main arguments.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2022 at 5:05:07 PM
permalink
Sure they did. They knew there wasn't ever going to be a jet once they thought about it and did a little research.Quote: darkozQuote: WizardQuote: TigerWuSee details on specially marked packages.
link to original post
That seems to be relevant to me. I don't think the "specially marked packages" mentioned the Harrier jet.
link to original post
Even more relevant is they had to fill out the form for which gifts they wanted to redeem and Harrier Jet wasn't on the form so they wrote it in.
Lol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
link to original post
Did Pepsi want kids/teens and others to think a jet was possible when they saw the commercial? I believe enough reasonable people believed Pepsi would make good on a jet or equal value.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 6:57:52 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: darkozLol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
link to original post
You should watch the show. That was one of Pepsi's main arguments.
link to original post
I watched the entire show.
I wanted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt but more and more they just kept making no sense.
The form to fill out had no choice for a harrier jet. They filled it in. They knew full well why it wasn't listed.
They had telephones in the 1990's. In fact the young kid made a big deal about contacting the friggin pentagon and ACTUALLY reaching the guy in charge of military decisions and confirmed that private citizens could own a harrier jet (explained without the armaments and spy guidance)
You telling me they were that conscientious but didn't think a phone call to Pepsi to confirm the offer was valid wasn't a good idea??? Or maybe they didn't want am answer to that question???
I mean the chutzpah was just overwhelming and I am an advantage Player so I know fully what they were trying.
And they even succeeded by getting Pepsi to fork over a million bucks as an offer without the check being cashed. No deal. Incredible!!!
They admitted the Canadian advertising showed a disclaimer. I mean that would have been used AGAINST them not for them at trial. The defense would have said the Canadian advertising proved they meant it as a joke and the lack of the disclaimer in North America was just an E&O(Errors and Omission).
I'm just shaking my head lol.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 6th, 2022 at 7:04:52 PM
permalink
I never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2022 at 7:18:16 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post
But there was no deal!
The check was returned. Denial of service.
Same as if I see a house for sale and after some negotiating the house is not for sale anymore. I can't say they promised the house and no contract was signed and any money as a down payment was returned.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 6th, 2022 at 7:30:45 PM
permalink
That's basically how I see it. I don't care what they did or didn't know.Quote: WizardI never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post
One might assume they had a jet available since people saw a jet in the commercial.
I assume that was one of Pepsi's more profitable champagnes/ commercials and they profited tremendously. I don't know how long the commercial ran before the added just kidding or whatever.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 6th, 2022 at 7:36:29 PM
permalink
I think once they collected any Pepsi points to get the jet, that should be enough.Quote: darkozQuote: WizardI never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post
But there was no deal!
The check was returned. Denial of service.
Same as if I see a house for sale and after some negotiating the house is not for sale anymore. I can't say they promised the house and no contract was signed and any money as a down payment was returned.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 7th, 2022 at 4:43:25 AM
permalink
Don’t ALL these promotions nowadays have the ‘we can end or change the promotion whenever we want to’ disclaimers? Did that start after this Pepsi fiasco?
December 7th, 2022 at 5:51:20 AM
permalink
I have watched the first 2 episodes and find it very entertaining. I like the fact that they have been able to get interviews with so many of the people that worked for Pepsico at that time.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
December 7th, 2022 at 6:54:44 AM
permalink
Quote: darkozQuote: WizardQuote: darkozLol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
link to original post
You should watch the show. That was one of Pepsi's main arguments.
link to original post
I watched the entire show.
I wanted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt but more and more they just kept making no sense.
The form to fill out had no choice for a harrier jet. They filled it in. They knew full well why it wasn't listed.
They had telephones in the 1990's. In fact the young kid made a big deal about contacting the friggin pentagon and ACTUALLY reaching the guy in charge of military decisions and confirmed that private citizens could own a harrier jet (explained without the armaments and spy guidance)
You telling me they were that conscientious but didn't think a phone call to Pepsi to confirm the offer was valid wasn't a good idea??? Or maybe they didn't want am answer to that question???
I mean the chutzpah was just overwhelming and I am an advantage Player so I know fully what they were trying.
And they even succeeded by getting Pepsi to fork over a million bucks as an offer without the check being cashed. No deal. Incredible!!!
They admitted the Canadian advertising showed a disclaimer. I mean that would have been used AGAINST them not for them at trial. The defense would have said the Canadian advertising proved they meant it as a joke and the lack of the disclaimer in North America was just an E&O(Errors and Omission).
I'm just shaking my head lol.
link to original post
Here's a hypothetical: Let's say that they had gone to the lengths to actually accrue 7,000,000 points without the loophole. Assuming that they could somehow flip the harrier jet, or alternatively, that Pepsi could offer cash equivalent, this could be done profitably had they been able to accrue the points quickly enough.
Given that assumption, even without Harrier Jet being listed in the catalog (let's say they claim they accrued the points without ever actually looking at the catalog), then would you say that they reasonably relied on the television advertisement to believe they would actually get a harrier jet?
If nothing else, I think it would be a much stronger argument.
As far as the Canadian disclaimer, I think it helps the Plaintiff; it demonstrates that Pepsi knew the offer could conceivably be taken seriously by a reasonable person, or, at least, thought it might be.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 7th, 2022 at 8:18:32 AM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Quote: darkozQuote: WizardQuote: darkozLol come on they didn't see a problem at that point?
link to original post
You should watch the show. That was one of Pepsi's main arguments.
link to original post
I watched the entire show.
I wanted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt but more and more they just kept making no sense.
The form to fill out had no choice for a harrier jet. They filled it in. They knew full well why it wasn't listed.
They had telephones in the 1990's. In fact the young kid made a big deal about contacting the friggin pentagon and ACTUALLY reaching the guy in charge of military decisions and confirmed that private citizens could own a harrier jet (explained without the armaments and spy guidance)
You telling me they were that conscientious but didn't think a phone call to Pepsi to confirm the offer was valid wasn't a good idea??? Or maybe they didn't want am answer to that question???
I mean the chutzpah was just overwhelming and I am an advantage Player so I know fully what they were trying.
And they even succeeded by getting Pepsi to fork over a million bucks as an offer without the check being cashed. No deal. Incredible!!!
They admitted the Canadian advertising showed a disclaimer. I mean that would have been used AGAINST them not for them at trial. The defense would have said the Canadian advertising proved they meant it as a joke and the lack of the disclaimer in North America was just an E&O(Errors and Omission).
I'm just shaking my head lol.
link to original post
Here's a hypothetical: Let's say that they had gone to the lengths to actually accrue 7,000,000 points without the loophole. Assuming that they could somehow flip the harrier jet, or alternatively, that Pepsi could offer cash equivalent, this could be done profitably had they been able to accrue the points quickly enough.
Given that assumption, even without Harrier Jet being listed in the catalog (let's say they claim they accrued the points without ever actually looking at the catalog), then would you say that they reasonably relied on the television advertisement to believe they would actually get a harrier jet?
If nothing else, I think it would be a much stronger argument.
As far as the Canadian disclaimer, I think it helps the Plaintiff; it demonstrates that Pepsi knew the offer could conceivably be taken seriously by a reasonable person, or, at least, thought it might be.
link to original post
Good questions.
I will start with the Canadian disclaimer. You actually are correct that the plaintiff would claim it proves Pepsi knew the offer could conceivably be taken seriously. Pepsi would make the SAME argument.
Their legal defense as I said is that they would claim E&O. Errors and Omissions is so common that most companies of this size have dedicated attorneys (the E&O department). Definitely in the arts (book publishing for example will have teams that go through every printed word looking for stuff that can cause problems legally. Using the song "happy birthday" for example which everyone thinks is public domain but is actually a copyrighted song. Use it in a book without permission at your peril).
So Pepsi would just argue "yes, we had the Canadian disclaimer which proves we were concerned someone would take us seriously AND we put it there to PREVENT anyone from being mislead and the lack of it in the US was just an E&O. It was never our intent to mislead. The advertisement went out with an omission of that graphic text as a disclaimer. A mistake on our part but not with any intention to deceive."
You might argue they should pay for the E&O mistake but Pepsi would argue they DID make a reasonable offer of a million bucks for their E&O and plaintiff refused.
There are also issues of equitable relief. The "Unjust Enrichment" legal doctrine is that people who received a service in return for payment that is inequitable or unjust enrichment on one party makes such an agreement void.
Payment of $700,000 for a $32,000,000 harrier jet? Because of a miscommunication between the parties and an E&O?
You also asked what if they had actually purchased (the doc says it would take $4-5 million in Pepsi purchases) to get the 7 million points.
I think they would have at least a STRONGER argument to make. But I still don't think they would have succeeded in a harrier jet. Certainly any company will have a (until supplies last) clause in their terms and service for the promotion. The lack of the jet listed would be Pepsi saying the supply isn't there because this was just an E&O (disclaimer left out by accident). The plaintiff would be entitled to all the other AVAILABLE gifts up to the redemption of his 7 million points but not specifically for a jet Harrier.
Anyway I am not an attorney but I have been pouring over legal decisions the last few months putting together a possible case I want to bring against Casinos so I have some idea of arguments that fly in court and argument that doesn't.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 7th, 2022 at 8:20:43 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfThat's basically how I see it. I don't care what they did or didn't know.Quote: WizardI never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post
One might assume they had a jet available since people saw a jet in the commercial.
I assume that was one of Pepsi's more profitable champagnes/ commercials and they profited tremendously. I don't know how long the commercial ran before the added just kidding or whatever.
link to original post
What would he have said if they presented him with the "jet" used in the commercial? I'd imagine it wasn't an actual working Harrier.
Years ago, I worked for a flea market that advertised that every hour, ten people would get a chance to win $50,000. In the 1980s, it was good money and attracted a lot of people. The raffle came and hundreds of people gathered to see who won. Ten names were drawn and nine showed up, so one more name was called. The ten winners were all thrilled,until they found out what they had won was an instant lotto ticket with a $50,000 top prize.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
December 7th, 2022 at 8:24:57 AM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: AxelWolfThat's basically how I see it. I don't care what they did or didn't know.Quote: WizardI never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post
One might assume they had a jet available since people saw a jet in the commercial.
I assume that was one of Pepsi's more profitable champagnes/ commercials and they profited tremendously. I don't know how long the commercial ran before the added just kidding or whatever.
link to original post
What would he have said if they presented him with the "jet" used in the commercial? I'd imagine it wasn't an actual working Harrier.
Years ago, I worked for a flea market that advertised that every hour, ten people would get a chance to win $50,000. In the 1980s, it was good money and attracted a lot of people. The raffle came and hundreds of people gathered to see who won. Ten names were drawn and nine showed up, so one more name was called. The ten winners were all thrilled,until they found out what they had won was an instant lotto ticket with a $50,000 top prize.
link to original post
If you just throw in the words, "Could Win Up To," $50,000, then I think you'd be in the clear. It would be true that each of the ten people could win up to $50,000.
"Up to," is always a fun one because you can legally justify pretty much anything you want to say after that, even if it's only technically possible.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
