Ok. I spent all of today working on my thesis - therefore the day sucked, bigtime. One piece of software doesn't work because another piece of software is too new... too new? what the hell happened to backwards compatability - down the toilet if you ask me. So anyway, enough of my rant and onto my question of the day.
The scenario conatins four people: Jill, Stella, Bill, and Morris Iemma (ok, i couldn't get anything to rhyme with Stella... so relax :P). Please note that the scenario and all names are fictional and anything that matches in the real world is purely co-incidental. (Don't want to be sued :D).
Jill, Stella, Bill, and Iemma decide that they are going to buy a Lotto ticket. It's a big draw and the jackpot is some $25 million dollars - not that the value of the jackpot is important.
Stella goes out and buys the ticket on behalf of the group, a week before the draw. Before the draw Jill and Bill both pay their share. So three out of the four have paid their fair share of the ticket. By the time of the draw Iemma has not paid (yes, Morris has the capacity to pay but did not pay immediately).
The draw concludes and surprise surprise the group has the winning ticket - $25 million dollars! The big question is: does Morris Iemma deserve a share of the winnings minus what he owes to the rest of the group or does he deserve nothing because he did not pay?
This is a very interesting question, and i'd love to hear comments on this one. My perspective: Morris Iemma doesn't deserve a cent. Being capable of paying he was unfairly hoping for win. Morris was most likely hoping for this scenario: "If the ticket wins I won't have to pay at all.. i'll be making money".
So what I say is that.... if you're not in - you don't get a cut, simple.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
yeh i reckon morris shouldnt get a cut - if the ticket didnt win, he wouldnt have paid stella. and you know what they say - gotta be in it to win it
same thoughts. done.
okay, here's my rant :D
while i'm not expert in the law, basically, they've made a verbal contract that the four of them would each have a share. its quite possible that if they had lost, morris might not have paid his share - however we will never know this because they did win, making the "what if" scenario irrelevant. as far as i know, contract law recognises verbal contracts, and by 3 out of 4 of them paying a quarter share each, their actions acknowledge that they have made such an agreement. therefore, regardless of what morris' intent was regarding payment, the contract was there and none of them could really deny that. therefore, he is technically entitled to his share.
yes, morris may have been a dick and not paid, or maybe he was just unlucky and never had the opportunity to pay up before the draw. regardless, the verbal contract was there, so i believe the law would err on the side of morris.
and if it didnt, im sure he'd just change the law so that it did :D
I'm sure that the verbal contract can be interpreted in such a way that the payment of the share is the enabling condition for the payer to be eligable a share of the winnings.
From another perspetive i'm sure the law also recognises deafaulting as well - as Morris defaulted and thus "broke" the contract. Right?
Who knows, i'm no lawyer... lol maybe i'll stick to asking questions and letting people sort the answer out for themselves.
Maybe some lawyers can sort this out...
Post a Comment