Frank is correct that, if it can not be shown to be a pervasive custom to
allow employees to keep valuable lottery-drawn door prizes they win at trade
shows, the company has every right to assert the agent's duty to account.
My "guess" that companies do not seek to "claw back" (Peter Bowal's quaint
characterization) such awards is based on my perception that such awards are
very common. Would companies be donating automobiles and round-the-world
first-class trips for two only to see the winners' expectations
disappointed?  Many companies have preexisting policies against employees
taking anything from vendors with whom they deal, but even these policies
may not extend to the remote chance that their representative might win a
free lottery.  My guess is that the remote opportunity to win a door prize
represents an employment perk, because it does not represent the potential
conflict of interest that a direct gift would.  If it should turn out that
"clawing-back" is common I will humbly defer to Frank's guess.  Moreover, my
friend who won the prize will be satisfied that his company has not singled
him out, after the fact, for cruel and unusual treatment.  I am trying to
determine what in fact is the custom with respect to valuable door prizes.
The only authority who has checked in so far, a full time trade show
executive responded: "What kind of chicken shit is this?"  Stay tuned.

As for the "facts not in evidence," my reliance on the principles of custom
and notice doesn't need them.  I introduced the setting of the actual
situation to make the point that, when conflict of interest is not at issue,
an absolute prophylactic rule requiring the tendering of all profits and
property acquired in the scope of employment may be more rigid than the
common law of agency requires.  (P.S. Frank, in response to your earlier
query with repect to property found by an employee, there apparently is a
leading 1912 case that exempts the employee from the duty to account.)

Jordan L.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Cross [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 3:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Door Prize


Well, Jordan, I think you're cheating.  Assuming facts not in evidence.
I am unaware of any custom letting employees keep $12k valued prizes,
but I'm sure it would depend upon the industry.

To me, the key point is this:  Employers will often let employees keep
their prices, for HRM reasons, thinking that this is a gift on their part.
They need to be aware that a pattern of making such gifts can transform
them into a "custom" so that they become an entitlement rather than a gift.
And there is still the sticky tax problem noted by others


At 02:16 PM 3/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From:         Leibman, Jordan H.
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:13 PM
>> To:   [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:      Door Prize
>>
>>  <<doorprize.wpd>> Colleagues:
>>
>> I want to give heartfelt thanks to all who responded to my door prize
>> scenario.  In the hope I can stimulate further comments on my comments, I
>> am submitting my take on the situation in the above attachment.
>>
>> Jordan L.
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\doorprize1.wpd"
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712