Connelly Baker, not Connelly & Baker. They're a small lit boutique, but they're actually quite good and well-regarded in Houston, almost like a poor man's Susman.

Connelly Baker, not Connelly & Baker. They're a small lit boutique, but they're actually quite good and well-regarded in Houston, almost like a poor man's Susman.

What a fool. He should get a million punches in the face, not a million dollars.

I want to see TTThe video

Perhaps Kolodziej could be on to something here. I'm just going to go on a limb here, but couldn't he use a doctrine under the Restatement? I felt like there was something there about reasonable reliance - perhaps in Section 90.

*requests Harrier jet from Pepsi*

Or, phrased another way, if the dude did it, and is convicted of murder, is he likely to fret an unpaid bill for $ 1M?

6,

I get the joke, but the reliance damages would be something like a $1,000... though if this guy is going to file something crazy like a $1million dollar suit based on this "offer," might as well go all Restatement 90 anyway I suppose... he could work on his IRACing for the Texas Bar.

if he fails to recover the full amount of the award, i'm pretty sure that the guy has an open-shut promissory estoppel claim for travel expenses under Section 90 of the Second Restatement of Contracts.

Texas

The court should rule in favor of the law student in order to deter defense attorneys from being such deutsch bags.

Kash,

The proper word is "poring" and not "pouring." Ugh.

Valid offer. Valid acceptance

"Lost Dog. $500 reward." = General offer to the entire world.

Acceptance = any one who brings me my dog after first being made aware of the offer is owed $500.

Same thing here.

wow, you guys are slow today... no comment on the quality of a lawyer who would include "Video cameras at the Atlanta La Quinta shoed Serrano at the hotel a few hours after the
murders." in the complaint?

shoed
One entry found.

Main Entry:
shoe
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
shod \ˈshäd\
also shoed \ˈshüd\ ;
shoe·ing \ˈshü-iŋ\
Date:
before 12th century

1 : to furnish with a shoe 2 : to cover for protection, strength, or ornament

your mom goes to college

7 wins - go look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. - this is first year K's shit, c'mon now. . .

7, funny reference, sad to say many of the kids here probably have no idea what you are referring to.

See Leonard v. Pepsico, 88 F.Supp.2d 116 and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

I love it. Good for him!

first year contracts....

Arguably there is a unilateral contract here, much like the well known hypotheticals involving a lost dog sign. However, this argument fails as a statement must be reasonably considered to be an offer by "reasonable" men. Certainly most reasonble people would interpret Mason's statement as grandstanding. Sorry K-man, you lose.

14 - Lost Dog. $500 Reward. It's a reasonable offer. In this case we are talking about a $1,000,000 reward. I don't see how any reasonable person could think that this was an honest a true offer. The attorney was obviously just trying to get the point across that it would be near impossible to travel that distance in such a short period of time.

The jet was mere "puffing"

The jet was mere "puffing"

Understand the "losty dog" analogy but i think this is more analagous to the pepsi case--> would a reasonable person consider the statement and surrounding consequences to be an offer? a reasonable person would think the speaker was grandstanding or making a point, not making an offer to contract.

statute of frauds.

Interestingly enough, there is no statue of fraud problem since this is not an alleged K for goods and the "service" could be performed within a year. The key, as stated above, is that the offer has to be viewed as an offer. But giving the stakes of the info in a criminal investigation, can plaintiff get past SJ on that issue and make it to a jury? If people get a mil for answering dumb questions on a game show, is it unreasonable as a matter of law that someone will pay $1 mil to prove if a crime could be committed as alleged? Of course P is an idiot, but can a court definitely determine that as a legal conclusion?

Coudert Brothers double teaming Dana Latham in HELL!

What were the students "pouring over" their outlines? Red Bull?
Beer?
Some Sugar?

Maybe you meant PORING OVER?

What were the students "pouring over" their outlines? Red Bull?
Beer?
Some Sugar?

Maybe you meant PORING OVER?

Hey it takes a long time for the screen to change. Sorry for the double posting! Haha!

"Of course P is an idiot, but can a court definitely determine that as a legal conclusion?" Yes they can, that's exactly what they did in Pepsi--> plaintiff you were an idiot for thinking Pepsi actually made an offer of a Harrier jet as part of their contest, YOU LOSE

29 just made me lol pepsi all over my barbri wills outline.

I'm pretty sure that dude received the Jet from Pepsi

7 wins, you can all go home now

The Connelly partner looks like a white version of Lat

27 here, don't get me wrong; I think he should loose. The facts of the PEPSI case were 1) SOF and 2) getting an item for much less than its market price plus private ownership is illegal. This is a bit different and am just wondering if he could get past SJ. Most likely not, but he's got better arguments than the PEPSI case.

Dismissal of the lawsuit is warranted. David George should be sanctioned for court costs and attorneys' fees for filing this frivolous joke of a lawsuit.

detrimental reliance.

I love it when all you biglaw corporate attorneys discuss contract law. You guys are so cute.

NOT Pepsi case at all

26 - NO, no sale of goods involved here

this was not an advertisement meant to be humorous

a reasonable person could believe that solving the 28 minute problem is worth $1million

Elie Mystal = Tay "Chocolate Rain" Zonday

Boom, done.

7 did you have bender for contracts as well?

watching the commercial in her class was the highlight of lawschool

PE should get back down to the basement.

Adding to the unreasonableness of interpreting this as an offer -- why would the defense attorney be willing to pay so much for "evidence" that ultimately would sink his client's case....

41, see 45

46 = 45

adverse possession.

adverse possession.

45 - irrelevant

question is whether reasonable person could have believed that offer was serious.

-41

45 - desire to pay does not factor in. think of all the stores that have programs where they promise to undersell any other retailer. they probably don't WANT to charge a lower price, but based on their offer to do so, they must.

i am also envisioning an old school barker promising to eat his hat if you can find a better hair tonic...

Dustin should have a better case suing South Texas for scamming him out of 3 years of tution than winning this case.

I'm sure with his South Texas degree, Dustin now has a job as a janitor at a more prestigous (yes still TTT) school like UH.

45 missing the point

Texas sucks so much this guy took a fake challange from TV and decided "WTF" I'll try it.

50 and 51 -- yes, the question is whether a reasonable person would construe it as a serious offer -- part of that analysis would be whether a reasonable person would construe someone offering to pay one million dollars for something that he reasonably could not actually want figures into that analysis. Also, the store analogy is poor -- regardless of whether the price is incorrect, there is no reason to doubt that a store genuinely wishes to sell its inventory to consumers. Now, you kids go and continue gearing up for second year.

@37:

loose - your pants are too big
lose - opposite of win

get it straight

50 and 51 -- yes, the question is whether a reasonable person would construe it as a serious offer -- part of that analysis would be whether a reasonable person would construe someone offering to pay one million dollars for something that he reasonably could not actually want as an offer. Also, the store analogy is poor -- regardless of whether the price is incorrect, there is no reason to doubt that a store genuinely wishes to sell its inventory to consumers. Now, you kids go and continue gearing up for second year.

I'll pay a million dollars if someone will just drop a safe on my head and end this discussion now -- probably not reasonable to believe I actually want a safe to the head (especially since I left biglaw).

55 = fail.

Kolodziej was able to beat the time driving to the La Quinta in a Lexis despite being accompanied in the car by his 3,500 sq ft wife.

For you guys acting like this suit has a snowball's chance in hell, step back and think for a minute -- doesn't something just seem wrong with the notion that an off-hand comment like that could create a million-dollar obligation???? Just say "yes" to common sense.

55, 57 -

the standard is whether a reasonable person would construe the offer as true.

Adding the subsequent analysis of why a party would offer $ for a solution detrimental to his legal position is beyond the scope of the reasonable person.

-41, 50

Aardvarks from Texas Eat Tacos And Burritos.

Aardvarks from Texas Eat Tacos And Burritos.

I will give one million dollars to the first poster who can tell me why there is bargain-for consideration to support the formation of this contract.

61 -- I disagree...a reasonable person would be expected to consider the circumstances in deciding whether the offer was true --that includes any incentive or disincentive for actually paying that much for something he wouldn't want...under your system, it would seem that the demeanor and words of the alleged offerer are the only relevant factors...as someone who has litigated and helped decide contract disputes, I respectfully disagree...a reasonable person is charged with knowledge of obvious circumstances

Offer expired, no contract. Oral offers can only be accepted within a reasonable time. D made the offer in December 2006. P accepted in December 2007. Because the performance of the offer could be completed in a few hours, the offer likely expired before P accepted a year later.

*dribble, dribble, drible* *TTTWICK!!*

have any of you people ever been in front of a jury. he has a good enough case to get cost of lit at settlement...he walks with $150K minimum

Was anyone aware that the paper "USA Today" is really about the USA YESTERDAY? I've been bamboozled!!

That makes me a saaad panda.

There was no meeting of the minds. P loses.

64

Consideration: In the formation of a valid and binding contract, something of worth or value that is either a detriment incurred by the person making the promise or a benefit received by the other person.

He paid/travelled, thus incurred detriment, change in position.

Pay up sucka.

Meeting of the minds is only relevant when the basic terms of the K are in dispute, i.e., quantity of goods, two boats with the same name, etc. Here, price and the service to be performed are pretty clearly set out. The Q is if a reasonable person would view the statement as an offer.

This will certainly get past SJ. Given that D's offer was to prove the impossibility of a murder, a reasonable person could think that this was a true offer.

Unlike Pepsi, which only had the relatively minor motive of selling a few more drinks to someone like P (thus making the offer of a fighter jet unreasonable), D's motive here was to prove his client's innocence in a capital case. D could only "prove" the impossibility of the 28-min sprint from ATL to the hotel by getting lots of people try and fail - the more the better. The only way you get random strangers to try a costly challenge with a high risk of failure is by offering a very large award. This is more similar to awards that were handed out by rich people for the first flying machine, speed records, the existence of god, etc.

Boo...everyone already beat me to the punch on Section 90 of the Restatement.

When did the attorney dude make this "offer"? When did the law student dude accept?

26 wins

72 = Williston's ghost

videotape constitutes a writing

75-

no staute of fruads generally in contracts for services...not goods here. (see 41)

it is true that it doesnt matter that the offer was subjectivly made in jest. we use an external objective test.

but objectivly externally it could not be considerd a real offer

It's certainly not extortion or mail fraud.

I'm actually on the fence on this one. I'd give him a contract if the offer was for $1000, $10,000, or even $100,000 or $1.2M. Somehow "a million dollars" just comes off as an unspecific phrase for "a lot of money."

Kudos to him for living the life of a contracts hypothetical.

72--Winner. I'd hire you.

I'm with 80. I think the murderer's "challenge" falls squarely into the "it's just an expression" category. I suppose next time I tell my buddy at the bowling alley "if you pick up that spare, I'll kiss your ass," he could successfully sue me for specific performance?

72 ftw

"no staute of fruads generally in contracts for services"

78 = fail

i hope most of the poster in here are taking the bar with me this month

The benefit of the offer is that he gets to document the failed attempts. If he never pays then he gets his cake and eats it.

it would also be less reasonable to believe it was an offer if he had merely said "I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it."

but he didn't. the interviewer asked him for clarification, and he affirmed it again.

who's with me? come on.

81 = plaintiffs lawyer with multiple ethics violations

how could anyone file this case with a straight face? sounds like a bad 1L exam hypo.

82 - specific perfomance of the agreement to kiss your ass is not available. Specific performance requires that there be an inadequate legal remedy, that specific performance be feasible, that there be mutuality of obligation, and there be no applicable defense to specific performance.

Inadequate legal remedy
In order for a legal remedy to be inadequate for a personal services contract, the said services must require exceptional personal skill or judgment, or otherwise be unique. There is nothing from the facts to indicate that you possess any particular skill in kissing ass. Therefore, the service is not unique and a legal remedy should be adequate to make the other bowler hole.

Serrano is a "wealthy businessman." This kid should have just gone to him and his idiot lawyer and said "give me a million dollars or I'll give the prosecutor my tape." It might be extortion, but what the hey. The alternative is a surefire loser of a lawsuit and a degree from South Texas College of Law.

I don't even think there was an offer here in the first place, let alone one which would have expired after a year.

Would anyone circumstanced as these parties were here really interpret the commonly used expression "I'll betcha a million dollars" as a manifestation of intent on the part of Lawyer to form a unilateral contract? Any idiot who has ever watched TV or had a casual conversation would know that people use that expression all the time without really meaning it.

Formation of contract fail.

A unilateral contract was formed - i.e. an offer was made that could be accepted only by performance. An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it. Whether there was an offer is a question of fact - persuade the jury (or judge if bench trial). The standard of performance for common law contracts is substantial performance - also a question of fact. There is no evidence the offer was terminated prior to acceptance.

Btw, if someone could hook me up with a job, that would be cool. Thanks.

is 3 years a reasonable time to accept the offer?

I'm the guy from the Dealbreaker ad - taking quesitons.

I'd say no contract. No offer, since the lawyer's words and conduct would be understood by a reasonable person as mere hyperbole rather than as a manifestation of an intent to be bound. Distinguishable from your typical reward scenario, because the lawyer clearly did not want anyone to perform a task that would tend to inculpate his client.

96: Exactly. "I'll pay you a million dollars if you can do X" is much more likely the intent to make a boastful phrase / manifestation of one's confidence in not X than it is the intent to make a legitimate contract offer. Had the lawyer done something additional to make it clear his statement was actually a binding offer (because reasonable people would not believe it to be an offer), such as in put the million dollars into escrow, had someone else judge whether X was actually done, gave out contact information for takers to address him, framed more stipulations (times, must be done by, must be done in my presence, etc.), then the law student would have a decent case. However, none of that took place here -- a boastful / overconfident statement alone does not a contract make.

43 - It's in the E & E. Some people study for law school. Not many though, and they're mostly d-bags.

To paraphrase Hank Hill: It should really be Kolodziej v. South Texas College of Law. How one its graduates could make an argument this bad is beyond me.

63- I believe they are armadillos. and they listen to rap.

Let me guess. He graduated from Klein High School?

+

thank you 87, why is everyone opining on this w/o seeing the tape?

Van Winkle would totally win this lawsuit.

Has anyone considered that the law suit was not initiated by Mason's refusal to pay the one million dollars but by his threat to treat any future communications from Kolodziej as "attempted extortion and/or mail fraud" and that he would "act accordingly"? Seriously, people. Mason treated someone like a jerk and got treated like a jerk in return. I bet the suit could be settled with a public apology and attorney's fees.

104: Mason treated someone like a jerk? Kolodziej is trying to hit Mason up for a million dollars based on some flip remark made in a TV interview. Of the two, I would call Kolodziej the jerk. Mason's first response was perfectly reasonable -- it was a joke and no reasonable person would regard it as a serious offer; therefore, I'm not going to pay you. Kolodziej was the one who kept pushing the envelope and insisting that he be paid after Mason's perfectly reasonable first response (the full account of this is in the complaint). It was only after Kolodziej keep pestering him (w/ the second response), that Mason clearly got angry and threw out the legal threats. When someone's trying to extract a million bucks out of you, that's a perfectly rational response -- cut the crap out or I'll retaliate.

@12 -- Are you referring to a disposal bag for a German vaginal insert? Just curious . . .

This post is in response to 105. There is a difference between asking someone to make good on a promise (even if Mason did not intend to make a promise) and threatening to make a reference for prosecution. If you've taken professional responsibility, you know that threatening to refer someone for prosecution to gain leverage in a civil matter (the only claim Kolodziej had) is unethical. I would have referred Mason to the state disciplinary authorities.

As to your reference to "pushing the envelope" by "pestering him (w/ the second response)," I don't know where you get that from. Perhaps Kolodzeij was, indeed, rude when he made a demand from Mason. The complaint doesn't say either way. But paragraph 17 does say that "In response to Mason’s threat of criminal prosecution if he continued pursuing the matter informally, Kolodziej was forced to retain a lawyer and file this suit." (And how brilliant am I to have figured that out without reading the complaint prior to posting?)

When you get into private practice, you'll discover that prospective plaintiffs occasionally make multiple demands. Sometimes, the multiple demands yield results. Sometimes they don't and the prospective plaintiff goes away. Sometimes the prospective plaintiff files suit.

105, please make sure that your brain is engaged before you put your (proverbial) mouth in gear.

- 104.

@92--the offer was made by an attorney

@108 -- The aTTTorney is an agent. Malpractice suit?

Could someone post a transcript and video of the interview? It seems that much depends on the exact wording of the statement and the attorney's demeanor while making it.

In any case, everyone who thinks that the guy is an idiot for making the claim - I seriously pity your clients.

Oh, cool. All of the 1Ls/2Ls are posting their two cents and intriguing legal analysis.

Good job Jean Powers. Keep on teaching a great class. It is kind of boring, but you did a great job. Let all of the NYC haters keep talking. I'm enjoying my 160K plus job! Gracias.

52 -
Actually STCL is viewed rather highly within the Houston job market (I'm sure the non-Houston crowd will have a lot of fun with that). Regardless, many STCL graduates enjoy clerkships alongside Harvard and Yale grads in the SD of Texas.

Wow a regional school is viewed rather highly within the region? You sound like a UGA guy, 113. B-b-b-b-but in Atlanta...!

if ever a post was baiting law student comments, this is it. what's next? a post regarding some outrageous slip and fall?

@110: para 12 of the complaint provides the url. The post provides 2 convenient, easily recognisable hyperlinks. Did you just discover interweb ?

I stopped reading the comments when the Pepsi case starting being discussed, so if this has already been mentioned, sorry. In the Pepsi case, you had to order products from a Pepsi catalog, which did not mention the Herring jet - therefore the plaintiff could not have believed there was a valid offer. There is no such limitation here, and I suspect some of the comments vehemently denying there was an offer are from that attorney himself. He's fucked

117: Good luck convincing a jury that a flippant "I'll give you a million dollars if..." remark made in haste during a TV interview was a legitimate offer. The public is averse enough to stupid consequences of laws and most people could imagine making such a remark and not meaning it vs. identifying with taking people up on remarks in jest, and bringing legal process against them when they refuse to pony up the million.

At the very best, Kolodziej might get a small settlement (court costs plus some small token "make this lawsuit go away" amount). There's no way he's getting anywhere near the million.

64 here. I shall explain why there is no consideration for this purported unilateral contract. Consideration is present where one provides a benefit or incurs a detriment in order to induce another to act, and the other is in fact induced thereby. The failure of consideration here is in the fact that the offeror did NOT seek to induce any action. That's the LAST thing he wanted.

For the same reason, there is no offer.

119, I think you're wrong. This attorney lost. His client is on death row. Now that this kid proved he could have done it, the attorney can sleep at night knowing he didn't cause an innocent man to die

117 - Herring can't fly.

120, That's very interesting. But I think it's clear from the context of the interview that the attorney was speaking in his role as advocate for his client. As such, he could receive no benefit from proof of his client's guilt, especially considering that death row inmates always continue to litigate right up to their deaths.

Man, that website DOES suck!

Thank you 123, you completely articulated my thoughts! I was not happy when STCL changed to that poor excuse for a website....

0L here (so I might be - make that probably am - talking out of my ass), but Newman v Schiff deals with something similar.

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/newman.htm

In a nutshell, someone said "if anyone calls this show and tells me where in the tax code it says xyz, I will pay them $100,000." Someone saw the rebroadcast, called in, pointed to the part in the tax code that said it. However, since the offeror said "calls this show," his offer only extended to the end of the show and the rebroadcast didn't extend the offer. However, they said it was a valid offer for a reward.

With no such timeline on the offer in this case, Mason could very probably lose.