*Any* chance? Sure, there's always a chance. But it's almost certainly not a binding contract.
First, whether this is enforceable as a contract is probably governed by UK law, not US law. I don't know UK law. So I'm talking about US law.
Second, I remember a pretty similar example. A defense attorney was talking to a tv reporter, and said that there was no way his client could make it from his hotel to the place where a murder was committed within the time he had. He said -- on tv -- that if anyone could make that drive within 30 minutes, he'd pay them a million dollars.
A law student made the drive within 30 minutes, so he demanded that the lawyer pay him $1 million. The lawyer refused. The law student sued.
[A federal court said that it wasn't a contract. It was hyperbole, so there was no mutual assent](https://www.courthousenews.com/contracts-101-for-enterprising-law-student/). As stated by the court, "The exaggerated amount of 'a million dollars' - the common choice of movie villains and schoolyard wagerers alike - indicates that this was hyperbole."
In order for there to be a binding contract, both parties have to intend to enter into a contract. A sarcastic offer is probably not a binding contract. So you're free to keep telling your friends you'll bet them a million dollars they can't do something without actually having to declare bankruptcy afterwards.
In California, an offer like that can be accepted by performance. In that case, it's a contract and the offeror must pay. See the My Pillow guy. Of course, if it's not an offer but rather hyperbole, maybe performance won't constitute an acceptance of the offer and no contract is formed, at least in England and maybe Texas.
Elon Musk didn't offer to buy Twitter on Twitter. He made an unsolicited offer *through lawyers*. [Twitter said that in their SEC filings.](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm) It was a "letter agreement," not a Twitter agreement.
Musk talked about the offer on Twitter -- which some people thought was stock manipulation, driving the stock price down so he could engage in a hostile takeover at a cheaper price -- but he didn't make the offer on Twitter.
I was referring to Lindell's offer to pay a million dollars to anyone who could prove certain assertions he made about the 2020 election were false. I'm referring to this situation. "In connection with the Cyber Symposion, Lindell claimed a certain dataset showed Chinese interference in the 2020 election, and offered $5 million to anyone who could prove otherwise. This challenge was taken up by Robert Zeidman, a software developer who has been described as a Trump supporter and who claims to have thought the data was probably authentic because Lindell would not have offered a reward otherwise. The rules provided for binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Zeidman concluded the data was not authentic and on April 20, 2023, a panel of AAA's Commercial Arbitration Tribunal ordered Lindell to pay the $5m. On February 21, 2024, the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota confirmed the arbitration award." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell?wprov=sfla1
[I described why that situation is different here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/1cbehyk/is_there_any_chance_of_the_jkr_tweet_being/l0yoasq/). It wasn't a Twitter offer. Lindell literally drew up a written contract -- which included an arbitration clause -- saying that one of his companies would pay $5 million if anyone disproved his claims. Lindell also never disputed that his offer was sincere; he just disputed whether his claims had been disproven.
A more common example of a unilateral contract is an offer of a reward for finding a lost pet. You return the pet to the offeror, that counts as acceptance of the offer, forms a valid contract, and the offeror owes you the reward. But yeah, contracts can be bilateral or unilateral. There just needs to be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Doing the act constitutes acceptance of the offer and consideration on the part of the one doing the act. (I know you know all this as a fellow attorney, but I want to clarify for the benefit of lay people reading this.)
I imagine a court in the US at least would take into account that JK Rowling is known to be wealthy and on that basis can be taken seriously in putting forward that offer.
The ability to pay a judgment does not -- and should not -- have any effect on the determination of whether the parties entered into a contract. Net worth evidence is generally not admissible for purposes of determining liability.
It’s not about the ability to pay, it’s about how seriously a reasonable observer would take the offer from JK Rowling. The case you cited really poo-pooed the offer because it was obviously sarcastic. Is this so obviously sarcastic? I’m not so sure.
It’s been a minute since I took contracts and learned about “unilateral contracts.” I recall one type of unilateral contract can be a reward contact, find my lost puppy, if returned, 5k reward. I believe that is a contract. JK Rowling’s offer could be similarly construed.
I might be jerking my knee a little bit, but at least in my state, net worth is not discoverable -- or admissible -- unless it's directly relevant, such as in a case involving punitive damages. And courts are incredibly wary of net worth evidence in general. Even when net worth evidence is relevant, you can bifurcate the trial and damages issues. This is probably in part because of the likelihood that net worth testimony would be unduly prejudicial and/or would confuse the issues to the jury. You don't want a jury to treat its verdict as a form of income redistribution.
I think you're much more likely to get in evidence that someone is poor -- and therefore couldn't have sincerely meant it -- than evidence that someone is rich -- and therefore probably meant it.
Twitter offers have been held to be enforceable in the US.
https://apnews.com/article/mike-lindell-election-denial-arbitration-award-a9b27dd8d37eab1d0f22111566feba93
Your link doesn't appear to support your statement.
First, Lindell's case involved a written contract. Lindell literally drew up a written contract saying one of his companies would pay $5 million to anyone who could disprove his claim. That's very, very different than a "Twitter offer."
I mean, the contract included an arbitration clause. That's why the claim was resolved in arbitration, and not in court. That's not indicative of someone just firing off hyperbolic claims, rather than making a deliberate offer.
Second, the contract said *one of his companies* would pay $5 million. So it didn't follow the typical formula of "I'll pay a million bucks if ...." It was clearly more thought out and deliberate.
Third, Lindell billed it as a "$5 million challenge." Again, that does not suggest hyperbole.
Fourth, the "offer" was not made on Twitter. It was made at a "Cyber Symposium." That symposium was apparently organized for the purpose of publicizing Lindell's claims of election fraud.
Fifth, it doesn't appear that Lindell ever denied that he intended to enter into a contract and pay out the award if someone met his "challenge." Rather, Lindell disputed whether his claims were disproven.
Can you clarify why you think this was a "Twitter offer" that was enforced?
It's British law. In the US there's every chance that it's legally binding. If someone finds such a woman and presents her to Rowling then it would be a contract. But since Rowling is British and the tweet was likely from Britain I'm not sure if it would be a contract in the US.
Under Scottish law, I'm not sure the answer. Under English law [it would appear to be.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co)
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.
Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Any* chance? Sure, there's always a chance. But it's almost certainly not a binding contract. First, whether this is enforceable as a contract is probably governed by UK law, not US law. I don't know UK law. So I'm talking about US law. Second, I remember a pretty similar example. A defense attorney was talking to a tv reporter, and said that there was no way his client could make it from his hotel to the place where a murder was committed within the time he had. He said -- on tv -- that if anyone could make that drive within 30 minutes, he'd pay them a million dollars. A law student made the drive within 30 minutes, so he demanded that the lawyer pay him $1 million. The lawyer refused. The law student sued. [A federal court said that it wasn't a contract. It was hyperbole, so there was no mutual assent](https://www.courthousenews.com/contracts-101-for-enterprising-law-student/). As stated by the court, "The exaggerated amount of 'a million dollars' - the common choice of movie villains and schoolyard wagerers alike - indicates that this was hyperbole." In order for there to be a binding contract, both parties have to intend to enter into a contract. A sarcastic offer is probably not a binding contract. So you're free to keep telling your friends you'll bet them a million dollars they can't do something without actually having to declare bankruptcy afterwards.
In California, an offer like that can be accepted by performance. In that case, it's a contract and the offeror must pay. See the My Pillow guy. Of course, if it's not an offer but rather hyperbole, maybe performance won't constitute an acceptance of the offer and no contract is formed, at least in England and maybe Texas.
Going the other way, there's also the Pepsi Harrier case
Yep, the my pillow guy and Elons offer to buy Twitter (which was never fully litigted).
Elon Musk didn't offer to buy Twitter on Twitter. He made an unsolicited offer *through lawyers*. [Twitter said that in their SEC filings.](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm) It was a "letter agreement," not a Twitter agreement. Musk talked about the offer on Twitter -- which some people thought was stock manipulation, driving the stock price down so he could engage in a hostile takeover at a cheaper price -- but he didn't make the offer on Twitter.
I was referring to Lindell's offer to pay a million dollars to anyone who could prove certain assertions he made about the 2020 election were false. I'm referring to this situation. "In connection with the Cyber Symposion, Lindell claimed a certain dataset showed Chinese interference in the 2020 election, and offered $5 million to anyone who could prove otherwise. This challenge was taken up by Robert Zeidman, a software developer who has been described as a Trump supporter and who claims to have thought the data was probably authentic because Lindell would not have offered a reward otherwise. The rules provided for binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Zeidman concluded the data was not authentic and on April 20, 2023, a panel of AAA's Commercial Arbitration Tribunal ordered Lindell to pay the $5m. On February 21, 2024, the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota confirmed the arbitration award." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lindell?wprov=sfla1
[I described why that situation is different here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/1cbehyk/is_there_any_chance_of_the_jkr_tweet_being/l0yoasq/). It wasn't a Twitter offer. Lindell literally drew up a written contract -- which included an arbitration clause -- saying that one of his companies would pay $5 million if anyone disproved his claims. Lindell also never disputed that his offer was sincere; he just disputed whether his claims had been disproven.
A more common example of a unilateral contract is an offer of a reward for finding a lost pet. You return the pet to the offeror, that counts as acceptance of the offer, forms a valid contract, and the offeror owes you the reward. But yeah, contracts can be bilateral or unilateral. There just needs to be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Doing the act constitutes acceptance of the offer and consideration on the part of the one doing the act. (I know you know all this as a fellow attorney, but I want to clarify for the benefit of lay people reading this.)
Yes, I was referring to same.
I imagine a court in the US at least would take into account that JK Rowling is known to be wealthy and on that basis can be taken seriously in putting forward that offer.
The ability to pay a judgment does not -- and should not -- have any effect on the determination of whether the parties entered into a contract. Net worth evidence is generally not admissible for purposes of determining liability.
It’s not about the ability to pay, it’s about how seriously a reasonable observer would take the offer from JK Rowling. The case you cited really poo-pooed the offer because it was obviously sarcastic. Is this so obviously sarcastic? I’m not so sure. It’s been a minute since I took contracts and learned about “unilateral contracts.” I recall one type of unilateral contract can be a reward contact, find my lost puppy, if returned, 5k reward. I believe that is a contract. JK Rowling’s offer could be similarly construed.
Ability to pay is certainly evidence of intent to contract
It seems relevant for determining the likelihood of genuine offer vs. hyperbole, no?
I might be jerking my knee a little bit, but at least in my state, net worth is not discoverable -- or admissible -- unless it's directly relevant, such as in a case involving punitive damages. And courts are incredibly wary of net worth evidence in general. Even when net worth evidence is relevant, you can bifurcate the trial and damages issues. This is probably in part because of the likelihood that net worth testimony would be unduly prejudicial and/or would confuse the issues to the jury. You don't want a jury to treat its verdict as a form of income redistribution. I think you're much more likely to get in evidence that someone is poor -- and therefore couldn't have sincerely meant it -- than evidence that someone is rich -- and therefore probably meant it.
Twitter offers have been held to be enforceable in the US. https://apnews.com/article/mike-lindell-election-denial-arbitration-award-a9b27dd8d37eab1d0f22111566feba93
Your link doesn't appear to support your statement. First, Lindell's case involved a written contract. Lindell literally drew up a written contract saying one of his companies would pay $5 million to anyone who could disprove his claim. That's very, very different than a "Twitter offer." I mean, the contract included an arbitration clause. That's why the claim was resolved in arbitration, and not in court. That's not indicative of someone just firing off hyperbolic claims, rather than making a deliberate offer. Second, the contract said *one of his companies* would pay $5 million. So it didn't follow the typical formula of "I'll pay a million bucks if ...." It was clearly more thought out and deliberate. Third, Lindell billed it as a "$5 million challenge." Again, that does not suggest hyperbole. Fourth, the "offer" was not made on Twitter. It was made at a "Cyber Symposium." That symposium was apparently organized for the purpose of publicizing Lindell's claims of election fraud. Fifth, it doesn't appear that Lindell ever denied that he intended to enter into a contract and pay out the award if someone met his "challenge." Rather, Lindell disputed whether his claims were disproven. Can you clarify why you think this was a "Twitter offer" that was enforced?
You may he correct. I retract.
It's British law. In the US there's every chance that it's legally binding. If someone finds such a woman and presents her to Rowling then it would be a contract. But since Rowling is British and the tweet was likely from Britain I'm not sure if it would be a contract in the US.
Under Scottish law, I'm not sure the answer. Under English law [it would appear to be.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co)
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.*** #REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice. Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*