Toys 'R' Us Reverses Decision on Baby Contest Total BS

S

slidecage

CAGiversary!
Feedback
106 (100%)
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...y/20070106200409990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001



i think i will sue the companies of every contest i dont win saying the rules were unfair. Total BS that baby should been DQ.


First company to be sue. Mcdonalds. They allow people living in vermont not have to include a return stamp. That is unfair to the people living in the other 49 states. Let the class action lawsuits begin


2nd company to be sued. blockbuster for not allowing people to get cheaper rates that new members get.
 
I don't think she deserves it. Whats the point of the rules if they can be broken in a contest. That means that I should win every contest I ever entered. If they're just going to give away the money.


This is a perfect example of what one of my HS teachers said once, after a student asked him why he doesn't grade on a curve. He said

"If I did that, the person with an 59 would get an F. If I curved them to a D a 60% then the passing grade is a 59. So why not curve the people with a 58% their only a point away from passing now. So that means that everyone is only one point away from passing. I pass the 58% then 57%s only a point away from passing. All the way down to the people that didn't even come to class. Their 0% is now a passing grade. So on and so forth."

My point is she didn't fall under the guidelines for winning the contest, and the money should go to the person in 2nd.
 
Did the rules specifically state somewhere that the winner had to be a legal US citizen? 'Cuz that's the main thing here. However, if you've gone and put your foot in your mouth because you don't know your own rules, then it's pretty low to reverse your decision.

Getting back to the original point, it's a linguistic thing. "If it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can do it" sort of thing. If they leave out the clause about legal citizens only, then they can't go back and say "well it's implied." But there are others who would say that such thing is a given. So it's all coming down to the wording and what is/is not there.

Point is that legalese is fucked up and always will be, and you can stretch things around even if presented in plain language.

I don't think you can tell someone they won and relent on it, especially if you didn't take the time to make sure everything was kosher. That's not cool at all.
 
[quote name='Strell']Did the rules specifically state somewhere that the winner had to be a legal US citizen? 'Cuz that's the main thing here.[/QUOTE]

From the article

"Yan Zhu Liu holds daughter Yuki Lin. Contest rules said that only mothers who are legal residents were eligible to win the Toys "R" Us $25,000 prize."

[quote name='Strell']
I don't think you can tell someone they won and relent on it, especially if you didn't take the time to make sure everything was kosher. That's not cool at all.[/QUOTE]

yes its messed up but people have been told they've won, and not been the winners before. My point is even if they did say you won, and she didn't really win. She couldn't sue anyway she didn't fall under contest rules.
 
Mkay.

So the deal is do you hold TRU's execs accountable for being douchebags who didn't get their shit together to begin with and thus let them backpedal, or do you relent since you after-the-fact fucked it up and let the woman get her money?

Seems like both ways suck. We need Micheal to give us a Win-win-win solution. He's the man for the job.
 
[quote name='Strell']Mkay.

So the deal is do you hold TRU's execs accountable for being douchebags who didn't get their shit together to begin with and thus let them backpedal, or do you relent since you after-the-fact fucked it up and let the woman get her money?

Seems like both ways suck. We need Micheal to give us a Win-win-win solution. He's the man for the job.[/QUOTE]

Better question at the end of the year, she owes the US government money for winning. How she going to pay? How does TRU file that?

form 67-9694945?

Have you given thousands of dollars to a non-US citizen?
How much & to whom?
(If no go to page 9)
 
[quote name='CitizenB']Better question at the end of the year, she owes the US government money for winning. How she going to pay? How does TRU file that?

form 67-9694945?

Have you given thousands of dollars to a non-US citizen?
How much & to whom?
(If no go to page 9)[/QUOTE]

♪♪♪ Nothing else has worked so far,
So I'll wish upon a star,
Innocent little speck of light,
I neeeeeed aaaaaa Jeewwwww ♪♪♪
 
[quote name='Strell']♪♪♪ Nothing else has worked so far,
So I'll wish upon a star,
Innocent little speck of light,
I neeeeeed aaaaaa Jeewwwww ♪♪♪[/quote]:lol:

What we need to know is if the legal resident has to be the mother or the baby, because the baby, having been born in the US, is legal.
 
[quote name='slidecage']First company to be sue. Mcdonalds. They allow people living in vermont not have to include a return stamp. That is unfair to the people living in the other 49 states. Let the class action lawsuits begin[/QUOTE]

Different states have different laws for contests.

Did you think that McD's has more love for all the chilly liberals and hippies in Vermont? Because if they wanna play the preferential treatment game, I'd do it in a state where people actually eat their food.
 
Walter-Sobchak.jpg

Has the whole world gone CRAZY?! Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules??!?!
 
[quote name='David85']The illegals should get the fuck out of the country.[/QUOTE]Yeah, it's what America was built on.
 
TRU was prolly trying to play both sides of the fence - I mean if they gave it to the illegal immigrant then the Minute Men faction may have all gotten up in arms.

Plus, the mother is no Kelly Hu, maybe they were just looking for an easy way out to dump this ugly couple.

The Lebowski image is spot-on.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']I don't think she deserves it. Whats the point of the rules if they can be broken in a contest. That means that I should win every contest I ever entered. If they're just going to give away the money.


This is a perfect example of what one of my HS teachers said once, after a student asked him why he doesn't grade on a curve. He said

"If I did that, the person with an 59 would get an F. If I curved them to a D a 60% then the passing grade is a 59. So why not curve the people with a 58% their only a point away from passing now. So that means that everyone is only one point away from passing. I pass the 58% then 57%s only a point away from passing. All the way down to the people that didn't even come to class. Their 0% is now a passing grade. So on and so forth."

My point is she didn't fall under the guidelines for winning the contest, and the money should go to the person in 2nd.[/QUOTE]

I'll agree with this point of view. You don't qualify based on the rules, too bad. Not TRU's fault you didn't read them.
 
[quote name='starman9000']I thought she wasn't illegal, just not a citizen.[/QUOTE]It's not clear from the article. She knows how to work the language well enough to enter a contest, though.
 
[quote name='slidecage']

First company to be sue. Mcdonalds. They allow people living in vermont not have to include a return stamp. That is unfair to the people living in the other 49 states. Let the class action lawsuits begin

[/QUOTE]


That has nothing to do with McDonald's, it's a Vermont law and standard for almost all mail in contests where Vermont Residents don't need to include return postage
 
[quote name='Strell']♪♪♪ Nothing else has worked so far,
So I'll wish upon a star,
Innocent little speck of light,
I neeeeeed aaaaaa Jeewwwww ♪♪♪[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

[quote name='David85']The illegals should get the fuck out of the country.[/QUOTE]


They will once you feel like picking strawberry's in California for $3 an hour, and on the plus side they'll give you a concrete bunker to live in. Or you could go work in a factory for .39 cents an hour. I'm sure that will make "leave this country."
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Has the whole world gone CRAZY?! Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules??!?![/quote]

Okay, here are the most important things from the article:

1) The Wayne, N.J. company had said it would go to the first American baby born in 2007.

2)"the sweepstakes administrator was informed that the mother of the baby born at New York Downtown Hospital was not a legal resident of the United States,"

3) Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents.

This makes it pretty clear that the rules state the mother is ineligible and therefore the child should not win the prize, although I'm a bit hazy on who exactly the winner is. It sounds like it's the child, which makes having a rule about who your mother is sound discriminatory. Imagine if you could be disqualified from contests based upon your parents.

It's also not clear from the article if the mother is an illegal immigrant or just someone who is here but not (yet?) a legal resident. She could be visiting, or on a visa. She could be a visiting scholar, for instance, or married to one.

The mother may not have intended to break the rules. If the promotional material invited "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, she might have done so based on that and not read the fine print. It's also possible that she didn't have the English skills to parse the legalese.

Clearly the rules favor TRU, but TRU blew it. They made this contest for publicity, and they certainly got that. But promising $25000 to a baby and then saying "whoops, sorry" is really bad press. Taking money away from a baby is the last thing a baby/toy company needs for their image, and giving an extra $25000 is nothing in comparison to bad press or even a possible lawsuit.

So yes, I care about the rules and TRU seems to have that on their side. But the rules are not the only thing in play here. Good publicity is far more important to TRU, and they'd have to be completely insane to not award the prize, even if it bends the intention of the rules.
 
[quote name='Strell']♪♪♪ Nothing else has worked so far,
So I'll wish upon a star,
Innocent little speck of light,
I neeeeeed aaaaaa Jeewwwww ♪♪♪[/QUOTE]
♪ BARBECUE SAUCE ♪
 
♪♪♪

I want my baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back

I want my baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back
baby back

♪♪♪

[quote name='Brak']♪ BARBECUE SAUCE ♪[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='jmcc']It's not clear from the article. She knows how to work the language well enough to enter a contest, though.[/quote]And wiley enough to get intouch with a lawyer about it.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']And wiley enough to get intouch with a lawyer about it.[/QUOTE]That's hella American. Give her the money.
 
[quote name='Rozz']That's the whole point of those jobs. If they paid a decent amount people would take them, but they know they can take advantage of illegals so they dont have to pay them shit. Ford, back in the day, actually WANTED to pay his employees a good amount of money so they can afford both essentials and luxeries. Dont give that "Americans dont want those jobs" bullshit. We would want them if the companies would actually pay a decent amount, rather than pay nothing because they know they can take advantage of someone who just wants to get by.[/QUOTE]

Actually, many of these mega agricultural conglomerates avoid mechanizing as much as they would because it's cheaper to hire illegals. Basically, if it were more expensive to hire workers to pick whatever, they would invest in machinery to do it. Here is some relevant information:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back801.html

Likewise, in the early 1960s, during hearings in California on the proposed termination of the Bracero program, tomato farmers claimed that "the use of braceros is absolutely essential to the survival of the tomato industry." Congress discontinued the program anyway, and the results were not at all as the farmers had claimed; University of California economist Philip Martin has shown that with fewer workers available, the harvest was increasingly mechanized, resulting in a quadrupling of production over the next 30 years of tomatoes for processing, and a fall in real prices.

This result nicely summarizes the threat guestworker programs pose to America's agricultural competitiveness: By artificially inflating the supply of labor, government interference in the agricultural labor market keeps the price of labor low and reduces incentives for harvest mechanization and technological advancement in fruit and vegetable production.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top