FACULTYTALK Archives

October 2007

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
james highsmith <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:51:31 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
It is a classic offer of a unilateral contract. The benefit runs to taco
bell which hopes to sell things in addition to the free taco that can be
collected. 


On 10/30/07 11:15 AM, "Susan Park" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I just taught consideration in class today!
> 
> Here's another idea - consideration doesn't have to come from the
> person who's receiving the benefit under the contract.  So if the
> baseball player steals a base - (assuming the player isn't otherwise
> legallly obligated to steal the base) is that valid consideration given
> in exchange for the taco?
> 
> Susan Park
> Special Lecturer, Legal Studies in Business
> College of Business & Economics
> Boise State University
> Boise, ID 83725
> (208) 426-3070
> 
> 
>>>> Terence Lau <[log in to unmask]> 10/30/2007 11:49 AM
>>>> 
> A student asked me today if Taco Bell's free taco giveaway from 2 pm to
> 5 
> pm today is a contract or a gift (see
> http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/fan_forum/tacobell/).  My initial read is that
> this 
> is a gift, since consumers have provided no consideration for the free
> 
> taco (the free tacos are conditioned on a base being stolen in the
> World 
> Series).  It's also not a contract because promotional materials such
> as 
> advertisements are not offers to contract.  On the other hand, driving
> to 
> a taco bell and waiting in line may be consideration, and is certainly
> 
> legal detriment.  Additionally, in looking at the terms and conditions
> of 
> the promotion, I dare say that Taco Bell may have created a contract,
> because the T&C include language such as "by participating, consumers
> agree..." and including waiver of liability, which is adequate
> consideration to support a contract.  Does anyone else have a different
> 
> read on this?  My take is that Taco Bell is offering a unilateral
> contract 
> and must perform by giving away free tacos, subject to the limitations
> it 
> has imposed in its T&C (limit one per customer, management can refuse,
> 
> etc.)
> 
> _____
> Terence Lau
> Assistant Professor, Business Law
> Management and Marketing Department
> University of Dayton
> [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2