Papa John's Camaro Drives To Court
We all should have known that at the intersection of a long-lost car, a multi-national pizza chain, and a huge cash reward, there would be litigation. Papa John's owner John Schnatter offered a $250,000 reward for his 1971 Camaro. A couple who formerly owned the car helped Schnatter track it down, but didn't receive the reward because they didn't hold the car's title. They did receive a $25,000 "finder's fee," but claim that the reward should rightfully be theirs. Now the company and the couple are suing each other. [WKLY] (Thanks, Becky!)
Post a comment
Comments:
"For the car" seals it, since it requires holding (then transferring) the title, which the couple couldn't do. One could squabble about a finder's fee, but since it wasn't part of the deal, the couple was lucky they got ANY fee, let along griping about it. And suing? Absurd.
Can I add that, of all cars to get weepy over, a '71 Camaro seems completely misplaced?
The couple simply couldn't accept the offer that Papa John's had put forth. In order to accept the offer, they had to turn over the car; since they didn't hold title to the car, they couldn't do so. As far as "changing the terms," I'm not sure that Papa John's would be precluded from changing the terms of the offer, or revoking it entirely, up until the point at which it is accepted.
There might be an argument that the offer, as originally stated, could not be accepted instantaneously and the doctrine of partial performance comes into play. If so, once the offeree begins the requisite performance, the offeror can no longer revoke. However, it's difficult to say without the alleged text of the original offer.
The Sloan's tried to play dirty middleman with Robinson and get a slice of that $250k BEFORE Robinson contacted Papa John's...trying to keep Robinson in the dark, even thou he already knew about the contest...he just didn't realize he had the car (apparently)
I think this article should be under 'Bad Consumer' for that reason alone.
The Sloan's should have just shut up, accepted the $25k and went on about their lives...but their greed pushed them even farther.
It's not much of a contest if the only person who can win is the one who holds the title.
@Trai_Dep: it IS completely misplaced. The only thing in `71 to get all teary over is the Barracuda with a hemi in PlumCrazy with black stripes on the cowl. ;-)
..thanks I need `cude pr0n now to satisfy me.
Greedy couple. Doesn't this country have enough frivolous lawsuits?
That's ridiculous. How do they expect the reward when they can't hand over the car and title? It's not like those rewards we see every so often for...oh... for argument's sake let's say for a missing person. Usually it'll say "$50,000 reward for information leading to the missing person". Something like that would entitle someone to the $50k if they give some info on the missing person and they end up finding them. But if it said "$50,000 reward for FINDING the person" and someone just gave info, they wouldn't exactly be entitled to the reward.
Some people are just way too greedy. They should be glad they even got $25,000 for the finder's fee, that imo is a very good amount for just finding the thing, especially if there wasn't exactly too much time and effort involved. Oh well, I guess some people just can't be satisfied.
Actually, they were quite in the right. They discovered that Papa John himself was a follower of the "gotcha" school of contests and used this as his inspiration:
The original owner got 2.5 candy bars. The couple only got a quarter bar.
@zentex: Let us join hands together while spitting upon a '71 Camaro. Although I'd be reaching out the window of my '71 Jaguar XKE while doing so. :D
@Esquire99: The only terms I see that were changed were adding the 25k finders fee, but that benefits those people.
Good old greed.
I would say that this couple have a case. Missing person's rewards do not requre that you haul said missing person in personally, nor are you required to be in posession of criminals in order to receive a reward. I think there is plenty of legal precedent unless the terms are specifically spelled out.
@PSUSkier: Yeah, it's definitely a sad state of affairs when a $25,000 payment for doing virtually nothing is still not enough. It's completely astounding how greedy people can be, and I also hope the couple walks out with less than they came into this lawsuit with.
@badgeman46:
Without the exact terms of the original "offer," it's impossible to say whether they have a case. You don't know if this is analogous to a missing person's case because you don't know if it offered $250k for INFORMATION LEADING TO the locating of the car, or only for actually turning over the car.
But the lawsuit filed against the Slones claims that after Papa John's told her she didn't qualify for the prize because she didn't have title to the vehicle, Billie Slone contacted Robinson, telling him she knew a man who would pay $125,000 for his Camaro.
Seems pretty slimy on the Slones if this is true.
A finder's fee is 10% and no more
-Morty Seinfeld
@PSUSkier: Yea.... and I remember when Mark Mcgwire hit his famous home run, and a "reward" was put out for the ball.
WELL I POINTED TO THE PERSON THAT HAD THE BALL, shouldn't I get the reward???????
Sorry - $25,000 is more then generous of a finder's fee which wasn't even part of the deal.
@PSUSkier: What the hell? This is exactly what civil courts are created to cover. Why such venom? they are not being greedy, they are trying to get what they perceived as their promised reward. Why should the company get to refuse to pay them as promised? It is certainly as greedy, if not more, than the couple to renege on 90% of a promised payment.
I have little problem with this going to court. This is a legal matter: the couple felt they had followed the rules set forth by the company, the company feels that thier "contest" was winnable only by the titled holder of the car.
@Esquire99: The official rules, which have since been taken down, required the winner to provide and sign over the title.
The official prize for the Contest is $250,000. The prize will be awarded only once to a single winner. In order to obtain the prize claiming you have found Papa's original Camaro, you must show proof of official vehicle title stating the names of all past owners, including John Schnatter, a photo of the Camaro outlined in the contest and you must transfer title of the Camaro to Papa John's or a party designated by Papa John's. You must also include your name, address and phone number for prize receipt consideration. Winners are responsible for all taxes and fees associated with prize receipt and/or use.Seems pretty black and white to me. Per the rules, the couple is lucky to have gotten anything, never mind twenty five grand.
@tmed: As I posted below, the contest rules indicate that the prize was only winnable by the title holder.
@supercereal: It pretty clearly says you obtain the prize by "finding" the Camaro and you must show proof of the official title showing John as the owner. Where does it say "you must be the owner of the Camaro"?
@henrygates: If you kept reading, you'd notice that you have to transfer the title over. You can't exactly transfer a title, as required, if you don't own the title.
@supercereal:
Given that, I agree that they are likely dead in the water. The only potential is in the fact that they claim the rules were changed. I'd like to see the "original" rules they claim existed.
@henrygates:
"and you must transfer title of the Camaro to Papa John's or a party designated by Papa John's."
Pretty difficult to transfer the title to Papa John's (or their designee) if you aren't the owner.
@Esquire99: Fortunately, Google's cache can give you that ability! Granted, this was from "around" the time when I think the lawsuit was filed, so it's anyone's guess as to whether or not these are the original rules.
@tmed: Bottom line - these litigants didn't have the car to give back to Papa John, so they don't get the 250K. The helped the current owner get the car back, but it wasn't their car and their greedy hands aren't entitled to anything. I think a 25K finders fee is nicely generous.
@supercereal:
Clearly I'm too inept (or too lazy to teach myself how) to operate the Google Cache function this specifically, but I'd like to see the rules from May 27th start date of the contest.
At first I was like most other people commenting and took the side of Papa Johns. However, after thought something seems fishy. This is clearly not a contest, since only one person can win. It's more like a sale. I'm sure Papa John's had a whole slew of lawyers working on this and they had to notice this could have been an issue and worded it properly. Plus, if these people were under the honest impression that they were eligible while they were helping Papa John's then I believe they have a case. I don't buy the claim that the couple contacted the car owner and said they knew someone who would buy the car. After thought, that wouldn't have worked out too well either. I'm betting Papa John's is the one trying to discredit here.
@tmed:
I agree with you to the extent that these are the types of disputes the civil courts are supposed to decide; the plaintiff perceives that that they harmed; the defendant claims there was no harm; both sides present evidence and the judge or jury decides.
However, the filing of an action, or even threatening one and going to the press, voluntarily subjects the plaintiff (or potential plaintiff) to public scrutiny. When you file a complaint based on what appear to the public as clear-cut facts, you should expect incredible backlash.
@tmed: "This is exactly what civil courts are created to cover. Why such venom?"
Just because you CAN sue anyone, doesn't mean that you aren't a jerk for doing so. They knew the rules, they feel that they should be rewritten to their benefit.
No title means the car isn't yours to sell, means you don't get the $250,000. I think it was a fantastic gesture that the Slones got $25,000 (because a "finder's fee" wasn't even part of the contest).
Schnatter wasn't offering $250,000 just to find out where the car was, he was offering $250,000 to buy the car back from whomever held the title to it and to collect that, the owner had to sell the car back to him. He sure as hell wasn't going to give a quarter of a million dollars to every greedy schmuck who merely knew where it was.
Slones = Royal douchebags.
@dohtem: Just sounds like business to me. Find the car, offer the highest price for it you can to beat all other offers while still making a profit off of the "bounty", pocket the rest. If the guy finds out about the prize on his own, tough cookies.
The Slones will get precisely what they are entitled to: Thrown out of court with hefty legal fees.
@Esquire99: The contract terms are remarkably sloppy for a company that ought to have counsel on staff. First, stating that terms that the consideration was to find the car, later adding a term that the consideration was to sign over title to the car. It sounds as if the couple attempted to do both - first finding the car and then attempting to obtain title so they could satisfy the title requirement.
Partial performance isn't going to save the couple here. Partial performance would only prevent Papa Johns from revoking the offer pre-acceptance. The offer was properly accepted by another party which by the terms of the contract closes the window on the offer. Even if the offer hadn't been closed, the couple would still be unable to accept the offer since they don't have title to turn over.
The $25k is a very generous settlement offer that Papa John's in all honesty didn't have to make. I would hope that they revoke this offer if the couple goes ahead with their litigation. its a gift. The couple should take it.
I don't believe there's any merit to Papa John's countersuit either. The simple airing of a contract dispute does not equal defamation, unless the couple has made public statements that I'm unaware of.
@zentex: There's nothing dirty about trying to buy up the Camaro before Robinson knew what he had. If the Sloans had offered a price and Robinson accepted, Robinson would have had no recourse.
@henrygates: It's misleading. It asks you to "find" the camaro, which that statement in itself means you do not have to retain ownership. Then it says you must sign the title over- implying that you ARE to retain ownership.
Poorly worded in my mind, it should of said that you have to prove that the camaro YOU OWN was previously registered to John Schnatter in order to collect the $250K. If you give Papa John's information leading to the recent owner, you are entitled to a certain amount of funds and the owner (bearing they even agree to sell the vehicle) will be given so much as well.
Everyone stating this was more like a lottery are indeed, correct.
@chao: They are claiming that the rules were changed after the contest began. They feel feel wronged.
I can understand thinking them idiots to have misunderstand the rules, but assuming they believe their side of this tale, the action does not strike me as greedy.
I also think Papa John's will have a hard time proving damage from the comments of the Sloanes.
@tmed: How is it a contest if only one person can possibly win? That's not a contest, that's "do YOU have my car?"
Not a contest.
@Verucalise(wantsherfigureback): I think that the spirit of the rules was to imply that you could FIND the Camaro, become the owner of the Camaro by, say, purchasing it from its current owner, and THEN selling it/transferring the title to Papa John's. The idea being, if the current owner is not aware of the contest, but you find the car, buy it, then give it to Papa John's, then you're the winner. I would certainly have tried to find the owner and buy the Camaro off of them, had I had time during this contest. Even if you can't make them part with it for less than $20k, you still know you're going to get a quarter million for it. Worth the effort...but it's moot now.
@Esquire99: The Wayback Machine ([www.archive.org]) keeps a history of web sites. Unfortunately, they did not have any past history on this one.
@tmed: I agree with you. Most of the arguments I'm reading here seem to have merit, on both sides, and that is the very reason they are filing a lawsuit. It may seem frivolous to some of us but this is one of the reasons we have civil courts.
Here's to hoping they don't get anything.
@Gruppa: Yes it is, in the sense there could be "no" winner. I'm surprised that no one pulled a Carfax report to see where that VIN was, honestly.
Oh come on, you got $25,000 for finding the thing and got pissed off? What? Did you expect the guy who owned it to just hand it over out of good will. I kinda hope they wash out the back of the court system with their wallets about $40,000 lighter (lawyer fees and what-not).