I posted this in the S.A. sandbox, but it revolves around a legal contract issue, so I'm posting it here too. This guy in Florida racked up nearly $19,000.00 at a strip club on his credit card, and claimed the club intentionally got him drunk, and maliciously charged his card. I don't think it is the worst defense I've ever heard, but how the hell do you prove it?
Also, I imagine the club is going to say it was the value of the benefit received which should be deducted from the damages (if any), and at what point did he become intoxicated. I would wonder if there is a breach of duty claim relating to the patrons of the strip club. I am mostly curious to see if there are other cases where this defense has actually worked! This is the first case I've heard of with these types of facts, but I'm sure there are several other instances when this happened!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/27...est=latestnews
- Marcus78
- 04-28-2011, 08:40 AM
- Shackleton
- 04-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Just going by memory so don't hold me to it, but, to void a contract because of intoxication, I think you have to show that you were so drunk that you basically didn't understand what you were doing. Over the limit to drive is not gonna get you there. Needs to be closer to falling down drunk. If you establish this, then you are allowed to void the contract. When you void a contract, you have to give whatever you got back. So, if you pay cash for a mercedes while completely drunk and win your case, you get your money back but don't get to keep the car. Since that's impossible in the case of dances, you'd have to pay the "fair" value of the services received or goods consumed. Not sure whether and how the claim that the entity that he owes is also the one that served him the alcohol changes things. Sounds like he's not just saying void the contract because he didn't have the ability to agree to a contract, but is also making some sort of tort claim against the club for getting him drunk. This opinion is fully worth every penny that you've paid for it.
- atlcomedy
- 04-30-2011, 10:30 PM
These huge club bills aren't rare. Not sure how they are all resolved and have there unique little quirks but the difference here is that the guy is claiming the intoxication deal vs. just overcharged.
At a certain point, paying cash is often not practical & credit cards are involved. I am aware of more than one circumstance where charges are disputed through the normal process (just like you might if say you thought your plumber screwed you or Best Buy sold you a bad stereo and you couldn't work it out.)
The other consideration here is did any illegal activity occur? Many clubs will essentially cash advance your card and give you house currency that is good for dances (& um other things). How does a court deal with that?
But back to intoxication, the original question; without it (drunk customers making poor decisions) a lot of clubs, adult and otherwise, would be out of business.
Let's face it: their bread & butter is a guy that goes in looking to spend $50, gets intoxicated and spends $250. Even clubs that are "dry" have a high % of patrons that are intoxicated before they ever entered the club.
At a certain point, paying cash is often not practical & credit cards are involved. I am aware of more than one circumstance where charges are disputed through the normal process (just like you might if say you thought your plumber screwed you or Best Buy sold you a bad stereo and you couldn't work it out.)
The other consideration here is did any illegal activity occur? Many clubs will essentially cash advance your card and give you house currency that is good for dances (& um other things). How does a court deal with that?
But back to intoxication, the original question; without it (drunk customers making poor decisions) a lot of clubs, adult and otherwise, would be out of business.
Let's face it: their bread & butter is a guy that goes in looking to spend $50, gets intoxicated and spends $250. Even clubs that are "dry" have a high % of patrons that are intoxicated before they ever entered the club.
- ShysterJon
- 05-01-2011, 12:51 PM
I think the way to analyze the problem is to look at the patron's stay at the club as a series of discrete transactions over time, combined with the ingestion of alcohol over the same period. The patron would argue that at some point he had consumed enough alcohol such that he lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the particular transaction in question (call it "Point X") and all the transactions after Point X (assuming his level of intoxication stayed the same or increased after Point X).
There are also other interesting issues at play here. Is it necessary for the patron to prove the club knew he was intoxicated to be able to avoid paying? Can the club benefit from its wrongful conduct (that is, serving an obviously-intoxicated customer)?
Professor Farnsworth* thinks little of the patron's cause of action. "Intoxication is usually voluntary ... and courts have often reprobated the party who seeks to avoid on this ground. 'As for the drunkard who is voluntarius daemon,' moralized Lord Coke, 'he hath ... no privilege
thereby.'" Professor Farnsworth notes that, under the Restatement (a sourcebook for lawyers and judges to use for general principles regarding contracts), a contract is voidable by reason of intoxication only if the other party had reason to know of the intoxication, as manifested by the drunk party's behavior. I'll also note that, in Texas, voluntary intoxication isn't a defense to criminal liability.
So how would the patron prove when he reached Point X, if ever? Proving what's going on in someone's coconut is often dicey. The patron would bear the burden of proving when he was unable to understand what he was doing. Professor Farnsworth writes that the court may consider the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute, the party's behavior during the transaction, his behavior before the transaction, the opinions of laypersons who observed the party's conduct, and even experts. (Maybe the patron can hire Captain Morgan or that dude in the Dos Equis ads as experts -- haha.) I would think that any video shot of the patron in the club that night and the credit card receipts would be relevant.
Professor Farnsworth argues that the dominant factor is "whether the court sees the particular transaction in its result as that which a reasonably competent man might have made." In other words, COULD a reasonable man have charged $19,000 in a SC? I say sure, why not? We may have different opinions whether the patron received good value for his money, but it's possible he did.
I ran a search through Westlaw. There were a couple of old cases about drunk guys trying to void marriages or conveying a deed, but nothing directly on point.
I read the lawsuit filed by the patron in Florida, which is posted here:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/26/StripClub.pdf
Not only is he seeking to void his contract to pay the club, he also asserts claims for deceptive trade practices and punitive damages. I can't see how he'll win, but I guess anything's possible.
Finally, the following is the relevant section of the Restatement:
*E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 4.6 (2d ed. 1990).
There are also other interesting issues at play here. Is it necessary for the patron to prove the club knew he was intoxicated to be able to avoid paying? Can the club benefit from its wrongful conduct (that is, serving an obviously-intoxicated customer)?
Professor Farnsworth* thinks little of the patron's cause of action. "Intoxication is usually voluntary ... and courts have often reprobated the party who seeks to avoid on this ground. 'As for the drunkard who is voluntarius daemon,' moralized Lord Coke, 'he hath ... no privilege
thereby.'" Professor Farnsworth notes that, under the Restatement (a sourcebook for lawyers and judges to use for general principles regarding contracts), a contract is voidable by reason of intoxication only if the other party had reason to know of the intoxication, as manifested by the drunk party's behavior. I'll also note that, in Texas, voluntary intoxication isn't a defense to criminal liability.
So how would the patron prove when he reached Point X, if ever? Proving what's going on in someone's coconut is often dicey. The patron would bear the burden of proving when he was unable to understand what he was doing. Professor Farnsworth writes that the court may consider the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute, the party's behavior during the transaction, his behavior before the transaction, the opinions of laypersons who observed the party's conduct, and even experts. (Maybe the patron can hire Captain Morgan or that dude in the Dos Equis ads as experts -- haha.) I would think that any video shot of the patron in the club that night and the credit card receipts would be relevant.
Professor Farnsworth argues that the dominant factor is "whether the court sees the particular transaction in its result as that which a reasonably competent man might have made." In other words, COULD a reasonable man have charged $19,000 in a SC? I say sure, why not? We may have different opinions whether the patron received good value for his money, but it's possible he did.
I ran a search through Westlaw. There were a couple of old cases about drunk guys trying to void marriages or conveying a deed, but nothing directly on point.
I read the lawsuit filed by the patron in Florida, which is posted here:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/26/StripClub.pdf
Not only is he seeking to void his contract to pay the club, he also asserts claims for deceptive trade practices and punitive damages. I can't see how he'll win, but I guess anything's possible.
Finally, the following is the relevant section of the Restatement:
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 12(2) provides, “A natural person who manifests assent to a transaction has full legal capacity to incur contractual duties thereby unless he is ... (c) mentally ill or defective, or (d) intoxicated.”______________________________
It further states regarding mental illness,
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if by mental illness or defect
(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) if he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction and the other party has reason to know of his condition.
Id. § 15(1).
Regarding intoxication, id. at § 16 provides,
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication
(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
*E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 4.6 (2d ed. 1990).
- _Jayne_
- 05-04-2011, 01:15 PM
I posted this in the S.A. sandbox, but it revolves around a legal contract issue, so I'm posting it here too. Originally Posted by Marcus78When you say 'legal contract issue', what exactly are you referring to? I feel quite sure you are relatively sure what my interest in your post and word choice stems from, so I'll keep your 'shop talk' to a mininum so you don't actually conclude I am seeking ANY legal advise from you. I don't have 200 bucks to pay for a consult fee. Hell.. I don't even have a 100 bucks to pay for a Dental Dew Over.
But anyway... There's much that happens in the really mean world ( this place not excluded by and large ) that is ONLY provable if someone who is privy to the details of one's trauma, defence, or causes of death comes forward on their behalf. However, in my personal research, it seems as though virtually EVERYONE is byable... even those who are terminally ill. I mean.. when an insurance underwritter stipulates part of a life insurance policy to include silence of any known legal scenario in order to honor the claim of the beneficiaries to the diseased dude ( or dudette ) ... corruption and real life jeopardy for even those with knowledge but no insurance policy clouds judgment and human goodness and RIGHT FROM WRONG so its no likely that resolution, closure, or even consolation will be found by the respondent ( or defendent ) if they LIVE... and in some severe cover up situations even family and close friends will just be glad the VICTIM or defendent or WHATEVER .. is either locked up, crazy or dead. Call it the big broom of fantasy fun and exploitation.
Your scenario describes a guy now responsible for a tab. Mind describes human life. I guess what it boils down to is money trumps humanity round here.. and only a real good person ( who would probably be a hero if they had any guts ) would share the truth.
Just my ..., well.. zero cents... because that's exactly what I currently have.
I'm posting this legible form of expression on the main board because the sand box requires a club I don't posess. Maybe that's my problem.
Hope someone saves that guys credit by telling the truth. I won't hold my breath, though.
Nice thought provocation Shyster.
- ShysterJon
- 05-04-2011, 04:50 PM
Jayne, I always enjoy your posts. I'd enjoy them even more if they had even some remote connection to the topic of the thread.
- shooter1a
- 05-13-2011, 02:00 PM
I have had a call from my credit card company when strange spending occurred on my card. They required me to answer a few security questions on the phone and ok the charges.
If the company that issued the card just pays up with out assistance I believe the card holder should fling more than one suit. At the very least find a new credit provider. I know my banker and send his kids Christmas gifts. My banker is the issuer of my credit cards and knows my cell phone number. To live a good life in the US a person needs three people--- an attorney, a doctor and a banker. Keep these three very close. In my wallet are their names and phone numbers so that, if I get involved in anything they can be reached. If I am in an auto accident and someone calls my doctor from the ER he will call the other two before leaving his home.
Look around one could put together the three from this board. Some of San Antonio's best are right here.
And, dud, leave the platinum card at home. I have three cards from the same bank, each has a different limit. Only one of them is good outside the US so if someone steals my card and tries to use it in Mexico the card goes dead. The card I carry in GCs has a $250 limit but I usually carry cash only in titty bars after a dancer tried to do something similar here in San Antonio. The manager came out and tried to hassle me when the card hit the limit. <G>. He started with the contract crap about dances for which I owed but he could not prove that I had received.
If the company that issued the card just pays up with out assistance I believe the card holder should fling more than one suit. At the very least find a new credit provider. I know my banker and send his kids Christmas gifts. My banker is the issuer of my credit cards and knows my cell phone number. To live a good life in the US a person needs three people--- an attorney, a doctor and a banker. Keep these three very close. In my wallet are their names and phone numbers so that, if I get involved in anything they can be reached. If I am in an auto accident and someone calls my doctor from the ER he will call the other two before leaving his home.
Look around one could put together the three from this board. Some of San Antonio's best are right here.
And, dud, leave the platinum card at home. I have three cards from the same bank, each has a different limit. Only one of them is good outside the US so if someone steals my card and tries to use it in Mexico the card goes dead. The card I carry in GCs has a $250 limit but I usually carry cash only in titty bars after a dancer tried to do something similar here in San Antonio. The manager came out and tried to hassle me when the card hit the limit. <G>. He started with the contract crap about dances for which I owed but he could not prove that I had received.