FaunaClassifieds - View Single Post

12-23-2016, 10:26 AM

There are a couple of area charities near Chicago that run "million dollar home" raffles every year. They accumulate tens of thousands of entries at $100+ a ticket, and the terms are clear... if you pay for the chance to win a million dollar house, and you WIN, you can have the million dollar house built, or you can take $1,000,000 in cash. Those are the TERMS. Now, image a couple scenarios:

A) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen, and they choose the $1M payout. Problem solved. Terms fulfilled.

B) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen, and they choose the $1M house to be built for them. Problem solved. Terms fulfilled.

C) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen. Raffle organizers specify in the terms that they are working with a builder who will already have the house BUILT by the time the raffle winners are chosen, and that the builder has promised them the final product will be worth $1M. The raffle organizers further specify that if the builder doesn't honor their agreement or doesn't finish the house in time, even though there's "close to zero chance" of that happening, the winner will instead receive $1M in cash. When it comes time to honor the raffle winner with their prize, the raffle organizers find out the house is actually worth TWO million, and they realize that they are leaving $1M "on the table" if they honor the terms of the raffle as originally specified. The raffle organizers then engage in semantic games by "Well, we promised you a ONE million dollar house, but not a TWO million dollar house... we can't give you this house because it's TEHNICALLY not what you won." The raffle participant, rightfully upset, then says "well, since THEN the builder didn't TECHNICALLY fulfill their end of the agreement, I'm now due the $1M cash prize that you said would be offered in place of the house, should the builder fail to fulfill their obligation." The organizers then reply, "But the builder DID produce a house,it's just not one that we can give you, so technically the terms were met... why are you so focused on the money, are you that greedy? You know we're a charity, right?" The participant says, "I'm focused on the money because you won't give me my house." The raffle organizers then offer, "Hey, so since we won't give you the house that was built, even though we said we would, since it's way nicer than the house you actually won, even though it's what we agreed on, and you seem to be REALLY concerned about money, how about we just give you your $1,000 back and call it a day?" The participant now replies, "No, that's not what I won and am rightfully owed." Raffle organizers say, "You know what, we were actually going to give you the house anyway if you dropped your insistence on making this right, but now that you've proved that all you care about is money instead of the charity we're holding this raffle for, you don't get anything."

I can tell you 2 things for sure... (C) is the situation that happened here, and if this had happened in real life, the people responsible for that bait and switch and resulting semantic games would be in jail right now.

This guy sounds like a good guy who got trapped by his own cavalier attitude towards his breeding prowess. He promised an albino if he produced one, but he only produced BETTER ones, and he didn't want to take the hit. This makes NO sense from a practical point of view, but it does make sense in the "leaving money on the table" point of view. If he had produced 15 tegus, 14 of which were T+, and one of which was T-, he's telling us he would have had no problem fulfilling the agreement. But, since he produced ALL T+, and they are worth more, he's not obligated to honor the agreement... AS IF IT'S THE BUYER'S FAULT THAT HE GOT LUCKY! THAT'S what's especially brazen about this... he's penalizing the buyer for his good luck. That's a low blow. If he only planned on having half T+ in total, then he's ALREADY way ahead of his game, but he has to hold on to one more T+ instead of honoring his agreement? A T+ he wasn't expecting to produce anyway?

It seems to be obvious here what the right thing to do is... what I can't understand is why someone who seems to have such a good heart and great track record is acting this way regarding an agreement with terms that HE SPECIFIED. NO ONE put a gun to his head and MADE him add the "if I don't produce one, I'll give you $3000 cash" caveat... HE CHOSE to add that as part of the TERMS. In fact, it's rather a silly caveat to add for a charity auction, as the charity doesn't get any more money than if he'd just written them a check for $3K and skipped the raffle. In the "I don't produce an albino, even though I did" scenario, he just becomes a money manager that has basically consolidated a bunch of people's tickets into cash winnings for one person, and the charity gets zero dollars. Seems like a very strange arrangement to me.

I don't see how the proper outcome is at all confusing for Mr. Park, but he may be succumbing to the echo chamber of his FB fans, which as we all know is a very poor substitute for real life. The BOI is real life, and I think the comment here in support of the OP reflect that.

12-23-2016, 10:26 AM	#98
Mister Internet	There are a couple of area charities near Chicago that run "million dollar home" raffles every year. They accumulate tens of thousands of entries at $100+ a ticket, and the terms are clear... if you pay for the chance to win a million dollar house, and you WIN, you can have the million dollar house built, or you can take $1,000,000 in cash. Those are the TERMS. Now, image a couple scenarios: A) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen, and they choose the $1M payout. Problem solved. Terms fulfilled. B) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen, and they choose the $1M house to be built for them. Problem solved. Terms fulfilled. C) Raffle participant pays $1,000 for 10 tickets in said raffle... their ticket is chosen. Raffle organizers specify in the terms that they are working with a builder who will already have the house BUILT by the time the raffle winners are chosen, and that the builder has promised them the final product will be worth $1M. The raffle organizers further specify that if the builder doesn't honor their agreement or doesn't finish the house in time, even though there's "close to zero chance" of that happening, the winner will instead receive $1M in cash. When it comes time to honor the raffle winner with their prize, the raffle organizers find out the house is actually worth TWO million, and they realize that they are leaving $1M "on the table" if they honor the terms of the raffle as originally specified. The raffle organizers then engage in semantic games by "Well, we promised you a ONE million dollar house, but not a TWO million dollar house... we can't give you this house because it's TEHNICALLY not what you won." The raffle participant, rightfully upset, then says "well, since THEN the builder didn't TECHNICALLY fulfill their end of the agreement, I'm now due the $1M cash prize that you said would be offered in place of the house, should the builder fail to fulfill their obligation." The organizers then reply, "But the builder DID produce a house,it's just not one that we can give you, so technically the terms were met... why are you so focused on the money, are you that greedy? You know we're a charity, right?" The participant says, "I'm focused on the money because you won't give me my house." The raffle organizers then offer, "Hey, so since we won't give you the house that was built, even though we said we would, since it's way nicer than the house you actually won, even though it's what we agreed on, and you seem to be REALLY concerned about money, how about we just give you your $1,000 back and call it a day?" The participant now replies, "No, that's not what I won and am rightfully owed." Raffle organizers say, "You know what, we were actually going to give you the house anyway if you dropped your insistence on making this right, but now that you've proved that all you care about is money instead of the charity we're holding this raffle for, you don't get anything." I can tell you 2 things for sure... (C) is the situation that happened here, and if this had happened in real life, the people responsible for that bait and switch and resulting semantic games would be in jail right now. This guy sounds like a good guy who got trapped by his own cavalier attitude towards his breeding prowess. He promised an albino if he produced one, but he only produced BETTER ones, and he didn't want to take the hit. This makes NO sense from a practical point of view, but it does make sense in the "leaving money on the table" point of view. If he had produced 15 tegus, 14 of which were T+, and one of which was T-, he's telling us he would have had no problem fulfilling the agreement. But, since he produced ALL T+, and they are worth more, he's not obligated to honor the agreement... AS IF IT'S THE BUYER'S FAULT THAT HE GOT LUCKY! THAT'S what's especially brazen about this... he's penalizing the buyer for his good luck. That's a low blow. If he only planned on having half T+ in total, then he's ALREADY way ahead of his game, but he has to hold on to one more T+ instead of honoring his agreement? A T+ he wasn't expecting to produce anyway? It seems to be obvious here what the right thing to do is... what I can't understand is why someone who seems to have such a good heart and great track record is acting this way regarding an agreement with terms that HE SPECIFIED. NO ONE put a gun to his head and MADE him add the "if I don't produce one, I'll give you $3000 cash" caveat... HE CHOSE to add that as part of the TERMS. In fact, it's rather a silly caveat to add for a charity auction, as the charity doesn't get any more money than if he'd just written them a check for $3K and skipped the raffle. In the "I don't produce an albino, even though I did" scenario, he just becomes a money manager that has basically consolidated a bunch of people's tickets into cash winnings for one person, and the charity gets zero dollars. Seems like a very strange arrangement to me. I don't see how the proper outcome is at all confusing for Mr. Park, but he may be succumbing to the echo chamber of his FB fans, which as we all know is a very poor substitute for real life. The BOI is real life, and I think the comment here in support of the OP reflect that.