Pearsall V. Court Case Summary
1. Briefly describe the facts. These two men were friends for over 25 years. After work each day, they would go and get their special “package” from the liquor store, which included two lottery tickets, which never turned out to be a major winner. On December 16, 1982, Pearsall purchased the package without any monetary support from Alexander. However, Alexander was who scratched the tickets only to find neither was a winner. Later that day, Alexander went and purchased another package; letting Pearsall scratch one and he scratch the other. Alexander’s ticket was a $20,000 winner, which he cashed and refused to give anything to Pearsall. Pearsall brought a suit against his friend, stating it was a breach of an agreement. 2. Which facts
…show more content…
were key to the outcome? The key facts of the outcome were the mutual promises to share the proceeds of the winning tickets. Pearsall’s promise to share was when he asked Alexander if he was “in on it” making Alexander’s consent to share in his acceptance. 3.
What legal issue(s) does this cases illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)? Consideration is the primary legal issue for this case. One of the basic elements of consideration is legal sufficiency. The promisor, Pearsall, had legal benefit. 4. List ALL of the elements the plaintiff must prove to win the case as stated in the court opinion or textbook. For example, if the case is about undue influence, the plaintiff must show 1. The unfair persuasive of a person, 2. By a person in a dominant position 3. Based on a confidential relationship. The plaintiff, Pearsall, must prove that the promise had consideration, making the promise enforceable. Consideration has to have two key elements to satisfy the requirements. It has to have legal sufficiency, meaning it is something of value in the eye of the law, and there has to be a bargained-for exchange.
EXPAND PERSPECTIVE 5. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party? The prevailing party being Pearsall argued that by exchanging mutual promises to share in the proceeds of the winning tickets, adequate consideration was given. He also argued that not only did Alexander give his verbal consent, he also snatched the tickets and anxiously scratched them when he contributed nothing to purchase the tickets making it evident he was “in on it” to share the proceeds. Another key point is dealing with legal detriment. Alexander, by his verbal promise, was obligated to split half of the proceeds with Pearsall and failed …show more content…
to do so. 6. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and/or ethical principles support a ruling for the prevailing party? Many facts have previously been stated to support the ruling of the prevailing partying. In addition, Pearsall and Alexander have had mutual consent on purchasing the package and splitting all proceeds for many years. It shows that Alexander, even though not formally in writing, was under a valid, enforceable agreement. We know that Alexander was in agreement to split the proceeds when he scratched the first set of tickets without hindering some form of monetary help. We also know that Pearsall was in on the agreement when he willingly let Alexander scratch the tickets. It was ethically and socially wrong for Alexander to keep the entire $20,000 for himself after the many years of friendship he had with Pearsall, and by doing so, he hurt or ultimately lost a friend of over 25 years. 7. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing party’s actions leading up to and after the dispute began? The main motivation behind Pearsall starting a dispute was the fact that Alexander did not split the $20,000 proceeds from the winning ticket after mutual promises to do so. 8. What legal arguments were made by the losing party? Alexander’s legal arguments were probably dealing with legal detriment. He likely argued that he had no obligation to give part of the proceeds to Alexander. 9. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles support a ruling for the losing party? The case did not give much detail about Alexander’s arguments. Some facts Alexander likely used to his benefit was their practice of “plowing back” small returns from winning tickets into the purchase of additional tickets. Another stance he might have taken is that since he purchased and scratch the tickets himself, he had the right to the proceeds and not considering the situation of the prior tickets that were purchased and scratched. 10. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s actions leading up to and after the dispute began? The dispute began because of Alexander’s greed. He was greedy with the winning tickets proceeds and felt that he had no obligation to share causing Pearsall to create a dispute against him. 11. How did the final court rule on each legal issue and was this different than the lower court? The final court’s ruling was in favor of Pearsall. This was different than the trial court because the trial court dismissed Pearsall’s complaint. 12. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles did the court use to support its ruling? The court used the facts of the situation to reach a conclusion. They also used consideration and legal sufficiency to determine the outcome. The amount of the winning ticket proved to be significant enough to have a case. The courts viewed that the agreement between both parties was valid and enforceable. 13. What were the probable motivations behind the court’s decision. The most probable motivation behind the court’s decision was the promises both parties made. Their exchange of promises constitutes for adequate consideration and consisted of detriment to both the promisor and promisee. Since they both promised to share if either of them scratched a winning ticket from their package, and then Alexander failed to follow through with sharing, goes to show a breach of agreement. 14.
Briefly cite and summarize the other cases you found that were more recent, from a different jurisdiction, had interesting facts, and/or applied a different legal rule (*See the instructions at the end for finding other cases) Another similar case I found is dated March 26, 2010 in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky titled Slone, appellant v. McDowell, appellee. The cases facts open with that the “Appellant and Appellee resided together as an unmarried couple for several years. On August 19, 2002, the parties won $250,000 in the Kentucky Lottery. They initially reported that Appellant was the sole winner because Appellee owed significant child support arrearage to his ex-wife. As such, the proceeds were deposited into a separate account bearing only Appellant's name. The parties continued to live together until approximately 2004. During such time, they made numerous joint and individual purchases with the lottery proceeds, including a new mobile home and a prefabricated garage, both of which were located on property owned by Appellee. Following the parties' separation in 2004, Slone filed a complaint in the Boyd Circuit Court asserting that she was the sole owner of the lottery proceeds and demanding reimbursement for all expenditures made by McDowell, as well as possession of the mobile home and garage. A CPA was hired to assess how all of the money was spent, and As a result of his findings, the DRC recommended that a "just distribution" of the lottery proceeds had
occurred and that each party would remain the owner of the tangible property currently in his or her possession. McDowell was awarded the mobile home, the contents thereof, and the garage. However, McDowell was required to reimburse Slone for all mortgage payments she had made since the parties' separation. Slone was awarded the cash and vehicles in her possession, her personal belongings, as well as numerous firearms.” 15. Relate the other cases to this case and critically assess the similarities and/or differences. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read, analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the recent cases are different, were there different legal standards that applied? Is there a trend leaning more in favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes the same or different simply because the facts are similar or dissimilar? This case has similar content as the one in the book. For instances, how to distribute the winnings of the lottery ticket. Both cases began with two parties who agreed to split the winnings and share them justly and even though it was verbally agreed on, one party failed to keep the promise. However, this case has a lot of differences as well. Such as the timing of splitting the winnings. The original case from the book dealt with splitting the winnings right when it occurred where as the newer case dealt with splitting the winnings years after the funds were received.
THINK CRITICALLY 16. What effect will this decision have on businesses within the court’s jurisdiction? This case, Pearsall v. Alexander, did not include any businesses that were affected and therefore, I feel, as this case will not have an effect on business within the court’s jurisdiction. 17. Do you agree or disagree with the outcome? If not, what legal rule would you have applied. Explain I do agree with the outcome of this case, not only legally but also ethically. Both parties were under a verbal agreement to abide by, and then one party breached the agreement. As long-term friends, Alexander should have had higher ethical character and split the proceeds as their promises suggested. 18. How will you apply this to your future career? Always have a high ethical standard for my own personal being and to never let something of monetary value effect a relationship. But also, to have things in writing even if it does seem meaningless at the time, and to have the other party fully understand how I view the agreement to make sure we have the same outlook at the promise. 19. Change up: Pose the questions: What if the facts were different? Create changes to the facts that would probably have resulted in a different outcome of the case and explain why this would have made a difference. A change that would have majorly affected the outcome would be if Alexander purchased the lottery ticket on his own time and not within the normal package deal both Alexander and Pearsall routinely got together. If this were the case, then Alexander would have not been obligated to share the proceeds because it was outside of the promises both men made. 20. What do you recommend to businesses to avoid this problem in the future or to make strategic business decisions? To avoid this problem in future cases, have the agreement in writing with both parties signature just to have a visual reminder and proof of was promises were made. Maybe Pearsall also needs to look for better friends that will not back out of a deal on him.
were key to the outcome? The key facts of the outcome were the mutual promises to share the proceeds of the winning tickets. Pearsall’s promise to share was when he asked Alexander if he was “in on it” making Alexander’s consent to share in his acceptance. 3.
What legal issue(s) does this cases illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)? Consideration is the primary legal issue for this case. One of the basic elements of consideration is legal sufficiency. The promisor, Pearsall, had legal benefit. 4. List ALL of the elements the plaintiff must prove to win the case as stated in the court opinion or textbook. For example, if the case is about undue influence, the plaintiff must show 1. The unfair persuasive of a person, 2. By a person in a dominant position 3. Based on a confidential relationship. The plaintiff, Pearsall, must prove that the promise had consideration, making the promise enforceable. Consideration has to have two key elements to satisfy the requirements. It has to have legal sufficiency, meaning it is something of value in the eye of the law, and there has to be a bargained-for exchange.
EXPAND PERSPECTIVE 5. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party? The prevailing party being Pearsall argued that by exchanging mutual promises to share in the proceeds of the winning tickets, adequate consideration was given. He also argued that not only did Alexander give his verbal consent, he also snatched the tickets and anxiously scratched them when he contributed nothing to purchase the tickets making it evident he was “in on it” to share the proceeds. Another key point is dealing with legal detriment. Alexander, by his verbal promise, was obligated to split half of the proceeds with Pearsall and failed …show more content…
to do so. 6. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and/or ethical principles support a ruling for the prevailing party? Many facts have previously been stated to support the ruling of the prevailing partying. In addition, Pearsall and Alexander have had mutual consent on purchasing the package and splitting all proceeds for many years. It shows that Alexander, even though not formally in writing, was under a valid, enforceable agreement. We know that Alexander was in agreement to split the proceeds when he scratched the first set of tickets without hindering some form of monetary help. We also know that Pearsall was in on the agreement when he willingly let Alexander scratch the tickets. It was ethically and socially wrong for Alexander to keep the entire $20,000 for himself after the many years of friendship he had with Pearsall, and by doing so, he hurt or ultimately lost a friend of over 25 years. 7. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing party’s actions leading up to and after the dispute began? The main motivation behind Pearsall starting a dispute was the fact that Alexander did not split the $20,000 proceeds from the winning ticket after mutual promises to do so. 8. What legal arguments were made by the losing party? Alexander’s legal arguments were probably dealing with legal detriment. He likely argued that he had no obligation to give part of the proceeds to Alexander. 9. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles support a ruling for the losing party? The case did not give much detail about Alexander’s arguments. Some facts Alexander likely used to his benefit was their practice of “plowing back” small returns from winning tickets into the purchase of additional tickets. Another stance he might have taken is that since he purchased and scratch the tickets himself, he had the right to the proceeds and not considering the situation of the prior tickets that were purchased and scratched. 10. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s actions leading up to and after the dispute began? The dispute began because of Alexander’s greed. He was greedy with the winning tickets proceeds and felt that he had no obligation to share causing Pearsall to create a dispute against him. 11. How did the final court rule on each legal issue and was this different than the lower court? The final court’s ruling was in favor of Pearsall. This was different than the trial court because the trial court dismissed Pearsall’s complaint. 12. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles did the court use to support its ruling? The court used the facts of the situation to reach a conclusion. They also used consideration and legal sufficiency to determine the outcome. The amount of the winning ticket proved to be significant enough to have a case. The courts viewed that the agreement between both parties was valid and enforceable. 13. What were the probable motivations behind the court’s decision. The most probable motivation behind the court’s decision was the promises both parties made. Their exchange of promises constitutes for adequate consideration and consisted of detriment to both the promisor and promisee. Since they both promised to share if either of them scratched a winning ticket from their package, and then Alexander failed to follow through with sharing, goes to show a breach of agreement. 14.
Briefly cite and summarize the other cases you found that were more recent, from a different jurisdiction, had interesting facts, and/or applied a different legal rule (*See the instructions at the end for finding other cases) Another similar case I found is dated March 26, 2010 in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky titled Slone, appellant v. McDowell, appellee. The cases facts open with that the “Appellant and Appellee resided together as an unmarried couple for several years. On August 19, 2002, the parties won $250,000 in the Kentucky Lottery. They initially reported that Appellant was the sole winner because Appellee owed significant child support arrearage to his ex-wife. As such, the proceeds were deposited into a separate account bearing only Appellant's name. The parties continued to live together until approximately 2004. During such time, they made numerous joint and individual purchases with the lottery proceeds, including a new mobile home and a prefabricated garage, both of which were located on property owned by Appellee. Following the parties' separation in 2004, Slone filed a complaint in the Boyd Circuit Court asserting that she was the sole owner of the lottery proceeds and demanding reimbursement for all expenditures made by McDowell, as well as possession of the mobile home and garage. A CPA was hired to assess how all of the money was spent, and As a result of his findings, the DRC recommended that a "just distribution" of the lottery proceeds had
occurred and that each party would remain the owner of the tangible property currently in his or her possession. McDowell was awarded the mobile home, the contents thereof, and the garage. However, McDowell was required to reimburse Slone for all mortgage payments she had made since the parties' separation. Slone was awarded the cash and vehicles in her possession, her personal belongings, as well as numerous firearms.” 15. Relate the other cases to this case and critically assess the similarities and/or differences. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read, analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the recent cases are different, were there different legal standards that applied? Is there a trend leaning more in favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes the same or different simply because the facts are similar or dissimilar? This case has similar content as the one in the book. For instances, how to distribute the winnings of the lottery ticket. Both cases began with two parties who agreed to split the winnings and share them justly and even though it was verbally agreed on, one party failed to keep the promise. However, this case has a lot of differences as well. Such as the timing of splitting the winnings. The original case from the book dealt with splitting the winnings right when it occurred where as the newer case dealt with splitting the winnings years after the funds were received.
THINK CRITICALLY 16. What effect will this decision have on businesses within the court’s jurisdiction? This case, Pearsall v. Alexander, did not include any businesses that were affected and therefore, I feel, as this case will not have an effect on business within the court’s jurisdiction. 17. Do you agree or disagree with the outcome? If not, what legal rule would you have applied. Explain I do agree with the outcome of this case, not only legally but also ethically. Both parties were under a verbal agreement to abide by, and then one party breached the agreement. As long-term friends, Alexander should have had higher ethical character and split the proceeds as their promises suggested. 18. How will you apply this to your future career? Always have a high ethical standard for my own personal being and to never let something of monetary value effect a relationship. But also, to have things in writing even if it does seem meaningless at the time, and to have the other party fully understand how I view the agreement to make sure we have the same outlook at the promise. 19. Change up: Pose the questions: What if the facts were different? Create changes to the facts that would probably have resulted in a different outcome of the case and explain why this would have made a difference. A change that would have majorly affected the outcome would be if Alexander purchased the lottery ticket on his own time and not within the normal package deal both Alexander and Pearsall routinely got together. If this were the case, then Alexander would have not been obligated to share the proceeds because it was outside of the promises both men made. 20. What do you recommend to businesses to avoid this problem in the future or to make strategic business decisions? To avoid this problem in future cases, have the agreement in writing with both parties signature just to have a visual reminder and proof of was promises were made. Maybe Pearsall also needs to look for better friends that will not back out of a deal on him.