Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino case brief summary
109 F.Supp.2d 324 (2000)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff wife and plaintiff husband brought an action against defendant casino, claiming that they won a $ 1 million jackpot and that defendant casino refused to pay. Defendant denied that plaintiffs won the jackpot. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Motion granted as to plaintiff husband because it was plaintiff wife that actually played the game. Motion granted as to the unfair trade practices count because plaintiff wife did not purchase or lease anything; motion denied as to remaining counts because plaintiff wife and defendant had a valid contract, and there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether she actually won the game.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
109 F.Supp.2d 324 (2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant casino moved for summary
judgment in plaintiffs' action for breach of contract,
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, and a violation Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons.
Stat. § 201-1 et seq., in a case involving defendant's refusal to
pay the $ 1 million jackpot that plaintiffs allegedly won.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff wife and plaintiff husband brought an action against defendant casino, claiming that they won a $ 1 million jackpot and that defendant casino refused to pay. Defendant denied that plaintiffs won the jackpot. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts.
DISCUSSION
- The court granted the motion as to plaintiff husband because it was plaintiff wife that participated in the game.
- As to plaintiff wife, there was adequate consideration to form a contract between her and defendant.
- The Plaintiff's wife participated in defendant's promotion, and did what was required by defendant in order to have a chance to win the prize.
- The promotion was not an illegal lottery, since plaintiff wife did not pay "something of value" for the chance to play the game.
- It was for the jury to resolve the factual dispute as to whether she actually won.
- There was sufficient proof of reliance by plaintiff wife to survive summary judgment on the misrepresentation and fraud and deceit counts.
- The claim pursuant to Pennsylvania Unfair Trace Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1 et seq., was inappropriate because plaintiff wife did not purchase or lease anything.
CONCLUSION
Motion granted as to plaintiff husband because it was plaintiff wife that actually played the game. Motion granted as to the unfair trade practices count because plaintiff wife did not purchase or lease anything; motion denied as to remaining counts because plaintiff wife and defendant had a valid contract, and there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether she actually won the game.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment