The Case Of Berry V Gulf Coast Wings Inc.

In article “You Asked for it, You got it…Toy Yoda: Practical Jokes, Prizes and Contract Law” by Keith A. Rowley, the professor of the University of Nevada, is discussing a case of Berry v Gulf Coast Wings Inc.
The case gathered a lot of attention of the legal world and extensive press coverage at the time.
A 26-year-old Jodee Berry was working as a waitress in Hooters restaurant in Panama City, Florida. In April 2001, all the waitresses were informed by their manager, Jared Blair, that a month-long contest would be held with several Hooters restaurants taking part. The waitress selling the most beer to customers at each restaurant would have their name entered in a drawing, the prize to be a new Toyota car. According to Berry, from time to
Judge said:
“We must look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. ‘The law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts.'” Lucy, 196 Va. at 521.
Analysing this case we can say that in Berry v Gulf Coast Inc., Blair the manager of the restaurant, by stating the prize of the competition, intended to be serious and binding. Even if he said that as a joke, the offeree Berry didn’t know so, and the reasonable third person would understand the offer was serious.
“…secret hopes count for nothing…a contract depends on what the parties express to each other and to the world, not what they keep to themselves; (Skycom Corp v Telstar Corp 813 F2d 810(7th Cir.1987)
Lucy’s contract was for sales of real property, but Berry did not allege the existence of any writing signed by Blair or any other representatives of Hooters. Thus, no writing was
63,67(Pa.1895) if the speaker is intending to create in the listener perception, that he is committing himself to a particular proposal, and reasonable person in the position of offeree, would believe so, an offer has been made.
In Leonard v Pepsico Inc.(88 F. Supp. 2d 116(S.D.N.Y. 1999) the alleged offer to acquire a Harriet fighter jet for the 700.000$ worth of Pepsi points was so outlandish that reasonable person would not believe it. Therefore there was no contract.
On the other hand, we have cases like Keller v Holderman where the offer was made in jest and offeree knew that. The whole transaction was a “frolic and banter”--the plaintiff not expecting to sell, nor the defendant intending to buy the watch at the sum for which the check was drawn.
Agreement made in jest could also be observed in a case of sham marriages, when both parties understood that, despite necessary formalities to be married, the marriage was made in jest or another fraudulent purpose.(McClurg v Terry 225(N.J. Ch 1870)
In term of general rules family, social or domestic relations, the presumption is that a legal situation was not