Binding share wining on Facebook On Facebook a retail business posted a $1 lottery ticket and stated will share with Friends. If the ticket really wins the $4 million is that binding?
Yes, for those who 'liked' the business after reading the post, but less likely for those who had already liked the business. Under contract law, the business's post is an offer to share the winnings with anyone who is a friend of the business on Facebook. A promise is enforceable if consideration is provided under a bargain; the consideration can be of nominal value (e.g. the act of 'liking' a page). In the context of a business page, in a time when 'followers' and the like are regarded as valuable from a marketing perspective, it is entirely reasonable to interpret the post as offering an exchange of likes for a chance to win money. The commercial context and involvement of money would cause a court to presume that there was an intention to create a legally-binding contract (Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; Banque Brussels Lambert SA v Australian National Industries Ltd (1989) 21 NSWLR 502). I am not entirely familiar with how the designation 'Friend' applies to businesses on Facebook. My understanding is that businesses have pages that are different to user pages. Businesses don't have 'friends'. They have people who 'like' the business. However, the word 'Friend' in the post has to be given content and therefore would be read as 'people who are listed as having liked this page'. People who had already liked the page are less likely to be able to enforce the promise to share the winnings, because they didn't do anything. They might be able to argue that they forwent the opportunity to un-like the business and that this forbearance is consideration. However, they would have to show that this was in consideration of the offer to share the winnings. Contract law is based on objective manifestations of agreement, not subjective thoughts (Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422), so it isn't necessary to show that the individual did in fact have the offer in mind when they liked (or didn't un-like) the page. However, it is necessary that the promisee have knowledge of the offer and not be acting out of some completely separate purpose (R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227); therefore if a user had liked the page some time ago and never knew about the offer until after the lottery was won, then they might have a hard time claiming a binding contract. Aside from contract law, the other possible head of liability is equitable estoppel (I mention this particularly for the people who had already 'liked' the business page before the offer was posted). However, equitable estoppel usually requires some element of detrimental reliance. Leaving a pre-existing 'like' on a page in reliance on a promise to share lottery winnings is unlikely to stir a court to find an equitable estoppel, since the detriment is trivial. Contrast Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, where the detrimental reliance was knocking down a building and starting to construct a replacement. Equitable remedies are discretionary, so the judge has plenty of leeway to not order compensation. This answer is based on the common law. There is nothing in Texas law which would make the outcome any different to the outcome in any other common law jurisdiction.
Of course you'd be in legal trouble, the contract is still valid. I also don't know why you don't consider virtual goods to be goods. Take this example: You buy a 1 year subscription for (example) netflix. The next day they cancel your subscription but don't give you the money back because its not a "real good". This should make it clear that virtual goods are goods too in the eyes of the law. Question is if police/lawyers care about it as much as for "real" goods.
Yes, they are. A business can decide not to do business with someone for pretty much any reason. The obvious prohibited reason is due to your race. But I don't see how eBay would even know your race. Some State laws might protect you, but I don't think there's any that applies in this case. For example, California might give you a means of appeal if someone stole your identity and they performed those transactions, not you. But I don't know of any Federal or State law that would change the very, very basic principle of law that a property owner gets to decide who can and cannot access their property. eBay owns eBay. One key benefit of ownership is precisely that you can make decisions that other people consider to be unfair, discriminatory (other than the specifically prohibited categories) and draconian. Other people don't have to agree with your decisions for them to be lawful.
In German Law you need to give your agreement ("Willenserklärung") to a contract or in this case terms of service. This is done by telling the other part. In some cases this can also be implied by an action (example: putting your bottle of beer onto the cashiers table is an offer to buy this bottle). As a second criteria a "Willenserklärung" needs to be the exact will of the part that declares its will (the website user in this case) §§ 133, 157 BGB or that the other side (you) could only see so (not the case here as this mainly speaks of content). If you visit a website and there are terms of services, the "Willenserklärung" is only given when the user read and agreed to the terms. If he did not, the terms of service are not applied until the user agrees to them. So I would recommend to block the website until the user agreed (overlay) as you need to proof he did when in court. Additionally there are so called AGB's in Germany. Those are contracts that are used or planed for many (more than 3) uses and set by one side (you). This may apply here, so you need to follow a lot of other rules like making sure the user had access and agreed, then there are many content restrictions and so on... I recommend consulting a German Lawyer specialized on this topic as this is very complex and includes other German laws for Media too, depending on the content of your site and terms. Also note that everything said is only based on my own knowledge and can not be used as safe legal source.
No. This is not gambling. Your quoted and paraphrased definition is especially misleading, since the original definition given on uslegal.com explicitly excepts bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, such as the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life, health or accident insurance. You pay an extra fee for the privilege of being on a waitlist for selection to an upgrade. That fee and list does not guarantee getting the upgrade any more than the fee and ticket guarantees you will have that seat on board that flight on that day. You only receive the tangible benefit if there is sufficient space and you satisfy the criteria set out by the airline (terms and conditions as provided at booking, policies applied by the airline whether publicly known or not, etc.).
First, shares are a form of raising capital. A company must have some capital, and Bob receives the shares in exchange. So it is not free (the exact minimum would depend of the requirements for incorporating). In both cases, Bob is not only a shareholder but the manager of Bob Limited. Bob will not incur liabilities for being a shareholder, but he can be at fault for his actions as a manager (for example, if he gives false financial data about Bob Limited in order to get credit for investing). Do not confuse Bob the Managerand Bob the Shareholder, as they are different roles. Of course, if you are a trading company and Bob the Manager approachs you asking for credit for Bob Limited, you will have to consider which assets Bob Limited has to cover possible debts, and you will ask him the books or other proof. If Bob the Manager provides you the correct information about Bob Limited and does nothing "funny"1, Bob the Manager is off the hook; you did provide credit hoping to get profits but you knew that there was a risk, and you were given the data needed to evaluate that risk. If Bob the Manager did things the wrong way (he did "cook" the books, he did provide false data or he did appropiate Bob Limited money) then Bob the Manager will probably be prosecuted. But Bob the Shareholder will not be liable for this, he will only lose the assets he did put forward as capital as the Bob Limited value will drop to zero. B) does not change much the situation, Matt still only loses his part of the company2. The difference here is that if Bob the Manager did "funny" things and did not manage the company correctly then Matt may sue Bob the Manager, too. 1For example, using the assets borrowed to buy a nice mansion and then selling it to Bob the Shareholder (or to Bob the Manager) for $1. 2Which is not valued at $50 but as half the net worth of the company. Of course, if the company was valued at $100.000.000 and Bob the Shareholder sold half of its shares for $50, people from the tax office are likely to come asking lots of questions.
This follows from a term in your agreement: in opening the account, you agreed to a binding arbitration clause. The general reason why they can do this is because it is not prohibited by law to have such clauses in agreements (in fact, the Federal Arbitration Act protects such clauses from legal challenge). For the same reasons, the clauses can impose deadlines on opt-out or require opt-out by mail as opposed to email or phone call. The premise is that if you find such terms unacceptably onerous or unacceptable, you will not patronize that business. That assumes that the customer read and understood the agreement that they signed, which I grant is often untrue.
Transfer of Personal Property The question is: are you still the owner of the guitar or is your friend now the owner. If you gifted them the guitar, they are the owner. A gift requires: intention to transfer title (you had this), delivery of the property (this happened), acceptance of the delivery by the recipient (he took it). At first glance, the guitar is now his. The concept of a conditional gift is irrelevant once the transfer has taken place - it relates to the promise to gift in the future if some condition is met and, unlike a contract, is not binding. If you have a conditional gift you can decide not to give the gift up until you make the transfer - after that, the item is no longer yours. You are now trying to make out that the transfer was by operation of a contract. This seems unlikely - see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? In particular I doubt that there was an intention to create legal relations or that the agreement was sufficiently detailed - was he required to attend the class? complete the class? enroll in the class? something else? You may have been clear in your mind that the guitar was for the class - was he? Or did the conversation go like "I'm taking a guitar class.", "Cool, I have a guitar I can give you." Even if there was a contract and he broke it, you are not entitled to the guitar back. You are entitled to the damage that you suffered by him not completing the class. Presumably, this would be the cost of hiring a competent amateur guitarist to play for you a few times.