Hornets apologize after pretending to give child PS5 and taking it away off camera - Yahoo Sports
Hornets apologize after pretending to give child PS5 and taking it away off camera - Yahoo Sports
Unbeknownst to the kid, the Hornets were only pretending to give him a console.
The skit that "missed the mark" occurred in a break in play during the second quarter of Charlotte's game against the Philadelphia 76ers on Monday. The child was brought onto the court with Hugo, the Hornets' mascot, dressed as Santa Claus. After a letter to Santa requesting a PS5 was read out loud, a cheerleader came out with a bag containing the video game console.
The young fan was visibly overjoyed as he received the pricy gift. However, according to an online acquaintance, he was less happy when the cameras turned off and a Hornets staffer took it away, replacing it with a jersey.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's called theft. Legally a gift is irrevocable once it's given.
IANAL Warning
Indeed, there was a story a while back where a bar had a contest for their staff; Whoever could sell the most drinks would receive a new Toyota.
Well one woman who really needed a new car busted her ass for that, and was taking to a parking lot where she was given a stuffed toy of Yoda from Star Wars; a "Toy Yoda"
She was told it was a joke and there was never any realistic chance of some local pub giving away new cars to minimum wage staff.
Well she sued over this joke, and actually won because during the contest she specifically asked what kind of Toyota it was and was told by her supervisor; the one who started the contest in the first place. That it very specifically was a real car that would be paid for in full and put in her name at no cost to her. Which invalidated any claim to this being a gag or a hoax.
You can imply that the prize is whatever you want it to be, and give whatever you want the prize to be. But the second you specify what the prize is in no unsubtle terms, you have to give it.
It's why I can say in a public ad that if you show up to my house wearing a Ballerina Outfit and a Cowboy Hat, and then knock on the door in the rhythm of the BGM "Bloody Tears", I will give you 100 Grand. You have no case if I hand you a candy bar literally called 100 Grand.
But if I said "That's right, one hundred thousand dollars in cash!", that wouldn't fly and you can take me to court.
But If I stayed on message and only said 100 Grand, using THAT exact phrasing, especially if I make other misleading but accurate claims like it being "100 Grand, yeah that's something to really sink your teeth into" then what I'm doing is hillarious.
By putting the PS5 Box in the kid's hands and saying he won a Playstation, that ended any ambiguity, taking away the box and giving him a Jersey was an act of fraud.
She was told it was a joke and there was never any realistic chance of some local pub giving away new cars to minimum wage staff.
I remember that story. It wasn't a local pub, it was a Hooters. Hooters is an enormous nationwide chain that could easily afford a Camry.
Hooters? Fuck I was told it was just some pub, that makes it 5000 times worse
Certainly possible it happened again at a local pub, but the one I'm familiar with was Hooters
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/former-hooters-waitress-settles-toy-yoda-lawsuit/
Yeah, I remember it as hooters too
He was given an empty box for show, letting him keep it wouldn't make it any better.
They never intended on giving the kid the gift. If they allowed them to go home with the PS5, and then requested it back the next day, then the family would have a good argument that ownership was transferred to them. This was just a bad joke.
Edit: on lemmy.world it's like I never left reddit!
Don't be defensive. I didn't downvote you, but when you pull false claims out of your ass that make no sense, that's going to happen...
How is my claim false?
because you said they never intended on giving the kid the gift. It doesn't matter what they intended. They literally did give the kid the gift. and it isn't a joke in any sense of the word. They gave the kid a gift, turned off the cameras, and took it back and gave him something else. That's just theft. It's not a joke, there's nobody that would see it as a joke, it's not even possible to interpret it as a joke, as who would be the audience?
Gift law, what the original person was talking about, literally states that the donor must intend on giving the gift.
The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee.
If you come over to my house and say "hey, nice PS5" and I say "you want it? It's yours!" and then before you leave I say "I was just joking, you can't leave with my PS5." You really think you can go to the police and have me charged with theft?
That's utter nonsense. A gift only counts if you make it home with the gift? Where did you come up with that?
I'm guessing it's based on the rules of the schoolyard game to run from one side of a field to the other while avoiding the corporate bullies in the center.
The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee
Intent needs to be proven or it's not a gift. They did not intend on giving a gift.
The cheerleader and other people around were reportedly also confused when the PS5 was confiscated. The child's uncle was apparently informed he wouldn't get to keep the gift, but not the child himself.
They unfortunately made the kid fully believe their whole intent was to give him the gift. That's so sad for the kid. :(
I wonder how this would play out in court, though. The company can argue that it was the uncle's responsibility to inform the kid as he was with him, but the kid's parents can argue the uncle wasn't his legal guardian and that he needed to be informed personally to play along.
Idk, this armchair is comfy though. lol
They couldn’t argue it was the Uncles responsibility to tell the child. The Uncle was told, and would also have been told to not tell the child. They set out to make the child believe they got the PlayStation because they wanted the reaction from the child.
Why would the act of going home change the legality? Or intent?
If i take a $20 bill and hand it to a stranger in front of witnesses and say, "Here you go, this is a gift."
If in 5 mins, I snatch that bill back and walk away. That's legal? Because he didn't touch his house first, and I never had intent to give a gift?
It's like a game of tag, once an item is exchanged you best start running home!
That's why birthday parties are traditionally held at home
Source: I made it up
Intent matters but not if the intent was to deceive. If the act had all the elements that represent giving a gift, then legally it WAS giving a gift. Otherwise all gifts could be taken back at any time just by claiming that it was actually a joke.