This is funny

Poor girl.

What type of claims can this poor girl have against her employer?


I. BREACH OF CONTRACT:

As a general rule, the offer to award a prize results in an enforceable contract if the offeree performs the required action before the offer is withdrawn. The purpose of contract interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the objectively manifested intentions of the contracting parties. The court first determines whether the contract is ambiguous. A contract is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation.

The contract in this case might be ambiguous with respect to the prize: Toy Yoda or Toyota? However, the drafter of the contract has a duty to exercise due care in explaining its offer so as not to mislead. Courts may consider the subsequent actions of the contracting parties to ascertain the parties' intentions and resolve any ambiguities. The circumstances (the subsequent actions by the employer during the course of awarding the promised prize) in this case demonstrate the employer intended to mislead the contestants concerning the true nature of the prize. It is apparent that the employer intentionally mislead the contestants into believing that they were vying for a car, specifically, a new Toyota.

Under contract law, the ambiguity must be strictly construed against the drafter of the contract. Presenting the winning contestant with a new Toy Yoda (rather than a new Toyota) was a breach of contract. The winning contestant may likely enforce the contract and require the employer to present her with a brand new Toyota (or an amount of money equivalent to the purchase price of a brand new Toyota).


II. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION:

The winning contestant engaged in a "beer sales contest" and the winner was promised a "toy Yoda" or a "Toyota" (car). She relied on the offer to put forth her best efforts to generate the most beer sales to win the contest. There is clear and convincing evidence that her employer wanted to deceive the contestants concerning the true nature of the prize as demonstrated by the award ceremony. The winner was blindfolded and led out to the parking lot where one would normally and reasonably expect see a parked car. Upon the removal of the blindfold, the winner expected to see her prize parked in the parking lot. Instead, she was presented with a brand new toy Yoda. (SURPRISE! You were duped!)

I'm sure the employer got a big kick out of the look on her face when she realized that she had been duped. But, she was clearly duped--the victim of a mean joke disguised as a legitimate contest.

Generally, to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must establish the following elements: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance, (3) an intention to induce action on the part of the recipient, (4) a justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the recipient as a proximate result.

I believe the duped waitress can establish all elements of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation.


III. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:

The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are:

(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;

(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;

(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and

(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.

The winning contestant most likely experienced mental distress, mental suffering or mental anguish including humiliation and indignity upon the removal of the blindfold and discovering that she was the victim of an elaborate hoax disguised as a legitimate contest. The distress was probably substantial and enduring rather than trivial or transitory.

However, there may be a jury question as to whether the employer's condut was so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Extreme and outrageous conduct is not mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. All persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

Extreme and outrageous conduct, however, is conduct which would cause an average member of the community to immediately react in outrage. The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct of a defendant may arise from an abuse of a position, or relationship to a plaintiff, which gives such a defendant actual or apparent authority over a plaintiff, or power to affect a plaintiff's interests.

A defendant intended to inflict emotional distress if it is established that he or she desired to cause such distress or knew that such distress was substantially certain to result from his or her conduct. A defendant's conduct is in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress if he or she has knowledge of a high degree of probability that emotional distress will result and acts with deliberate disregard of that probability or with a conscious disregard of the probable results.

Under the circumstances of this case, the employer may be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.


CONCLUSION:

NOT SO FUNNY after all.

The fun has just gone out of it
I thought it was funnier that she got a job at Hooter's :-)

She needs to get a freakin' sense of humor...come on....this was funny!

Sue them, will she?

Found it funny, I did.

I googled the topic and discovered that the former Hooters' waitress settled her lawsuit . . . and she now has enough money to go out and buy any Toyota she desires.

The employer thought it was a pretty funny April fools joke. I wonder who's laughing now?

Good on her! Everyone can see that there was an ATTEMPT at humour here, but to someone who is on a low wage and probably just about making ends meet, the prank would have fallen flat, to say the least. I can imagine her disappointment at the time, and can understand the anger that followed.

Dont get mad, get even.

and maybe she will have enough left over to get some hooters of her own

I'm very glad to hear that Debra, if they can make jokes they should be able to take jokes. Good luck to her, I still think it was funny though.

That's funny as hell,soon she'll be laghing in her new car next to yoda