[HN Gopher] The time Pepsi got sued for a $33M fighter jet
___________________________________________________________________
The time Pepsi got sued for a $33M fighter jet
Author : Anon84
Score : 138 points
Date : 2021-08-15 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
| neurobashing wrote:
| The (IMHO wonderful) film Real Genius riffed on the real-world
| examples of people trying to exploit corporate sweepstakes:
|
| "When Lazlo Hollyfeld (Jon Gries) sends in a large number of
| entries to the Frito-Lay contest, he is mirroring the actions of
| Caltech students Steve Klein, Dave Novikoff and Barry Megdal,
| who, in 1974, used a similar strategy to win a McDonald's
| sweepstakes. Their entries came to roughly 1/5th of the total
| entries and won them a station wagon, $3,000 cash and $1,500 in
| food gift certificates."
|
| "It said enter as often as you like, so I did."
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| When I was in college, a local pizza place had an online
| contest for "free pizza" for a year and said you could enter as
| many times as you like. I wrote a quick python script to fill
| out the form with my info that would submit it every 30 second.
| I got a call from the pizza place a few days later asking me to
| stop. They said that I was 90% of the entries and that I wasn't
| acting in good faith. They offered me $100 gift card and I was
| happy with that.
| dheera wrote:
| I did something at MIT where some place was offering free
| personal pizzas (delivered!), and it seems their logic was
| one pizza per /phone number/, that they would call upon
| arrival with the pizza, so I went around campus and set up
| several classroom phones (which nobody uses no receive calls
| anyway) to forward calls to my dorm room's analog phone line,
| which fortunately you could do just by dialing some codes on
| the phone.
| duxup wrote:
| Seems like a reasonable solution there. Nice to see it
| resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
| griko wrote:
| I did a similar thing back in college at [insert fast food
| franchise name].
|
| One branch I went had a poster that roughly says "enter our
| mobile app survey and get a free meal", so I connect to their
| public wifi, downloaded it, enter the survey, and got a text
| message that can be exchanged on the cashier for some decent
| fries and other stuff. Later I learned that the app limits
| one submission per device per day, so few days later I start
| bringing friends to submit on their phones and got ourselves
| a free lunch. We did this once or twice a week so the manager
| doesn't get suspicious.
|
| Then one time I accidentally got disconnected to the wifi
| after submitting, tried reopening the app and to my surprise,
| it allowed me to submit again. I guessed that they limit
| submission per IP address, so I tried reconnecting to the
| wifi and the app limits me like before. Me being curious,
| tried using a VPN and it didn't limit me both on wifi and
| mobile data, so that means I can do four submissions per day
| per device. Imagine how many meals I can get.
|
| Few months later, the poster was removed, then later I
| learned that it was also removed on every branch in the city.
| The app just shows a blank white screen. Today I tried
| downloading the app and it still shows nothing.
| valec wrote:
| > local pizza place you are an asshole. why would you do
| that?
| joshjdr wrote:
| Im guessing free pizza.
|
| The fact that they're local shouldn't matter in this case;
| they offered it, and apparently were going to give it to
| someone, so don't blame the kid for trying!
| lamontcg wrote:
| Reminds me of the Keybase "Space Drop"
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| The harrier costs $30 million, and the JSF costs "$80 million"
| (plus $1.1 trillion development / jobs program / pork / bug
| fixing)
|
| Why didn't we just turn harriers into drones and build a lot of
| them?
|
| It seems like we should be building a lot of cheap and/or
| pilotless aircraft.
|
| edit: -4. I should refrain from posting unpopular opinions
| because it triggers HN's rate limiter and prevents me from
| posting the rest of the day. I just wrote a small essay I can't
| post anymore.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The US government certainly has fleets of pilotless drones,
| both small and large.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Why didn't we just turn harriers into drones and build a lot
| of them?
|
| An aircraft whose basic design concept is more than 50 years
| old isn't the best starting point for a modern drone capability
| [deleted]
| dredmorbius wrote:
| B-52s are a design that will turn 70 next year, with
| individual airframes built 60 years ago still in active
| service, and planned to continue in same beyond 2050, a
| century of use.
|
| Aeronautics hasn't changed all that much. Many of the
| interesting parts can be readily swapped out. (A re-engining
| of the B-52 was considered in the 1970s, but shelved on a
| costs-benefit basis.)
|
| A drone Harrier role might not make strategic sense, though
| it could. Age alone has little to do with the question.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > B-52s are a design that will turn 70 next year
|
| Agree.
|
| > A drone Harrier role might not make strategic sense
|
| B-52s are still flying because they do actually fulfil a
| military role, namely carrying vast amounts of stuff and
| being suitably militarised. Harriers are relatively short
| range, non-stealthy, fuel inefficient and sacrifice payload
| for the VTOL capability. I can't see any way in which a
| Harrier would make sense as the basis for a new drone, let
| alone in a strategic sense.
|
| [Edit] Updating old military things to new roles can be a
| fantastic way to waste vast amounts of money before
| cancelling the programme anyway. Exhibit A - the UK's
| Nimrod programme (new engines on bespoke vintage
| fuselages). Exhibit B. The UK Army's Warrior vehicle
| upgrade (modern turrets on a 40-year old hull), cancelled
| this year after running the 'capability sustainment
| programme' for at least five years.
|
| [Edit 2] The last time (1982) that the Harriers conducted
| actual air combat as opposed to dropping bombs in a
| permissive airspace was against Super Etendard (now 50
| years old) and Mirage III (now 60 years old). There is no
| evidence Harriers would last more than ten minutes if their
| users didn't have total air supremacy.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Old aircraft do get turned into drones, for training and R&D
| purposes though, not for combat.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I'm no miltary person, but would modifying an old plane to
| fly without a pilot either as a autonominous plane or remote
| piloted drone allow it to be come more dangerous than the
| oringinal fitted out plane?
|
| ie because there's no human inside so it should be able fly
| tighter turns, also be a lighter aircraft
| mschild wrote:
| Depends on the plane, but it seems that most aircraft can
| sustain about the same force as the people flying them. I'm
| sure there are safety margins but an F-16 can sustain about
| 9 G's [0]. A trained fighter pilot with an anti-G suite can
| sustain around 9 G's as well [1]. The G-force capabilities
| don't seem to have improved much since the F-16. The F-35
| can also "only" do 9 G's [2].
|
| This does make sense though. Whats the point of building an
| aircraft that can withstand much higher G's if there is no
| pilot that can ever fly it in such a manner. Plus it might
| just become exponentially more expense to exceed this
| limit.
|
| [0] https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
| Sheets/Display/Article/1045... [1]
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/gravity-forces/ [2]
| https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/f-35a-specifications
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I understand the Eurofighter can withstand forces well
| above 9g. Maybe most jets aren't built to sustain forces
| they will never encounter anyway.
| ilovecaching wrote:
| He wouldn't be able to afford the fuel (hovering burns a ton) let
| alone the training, I'm assuming it's illegal to fly. I wonder
| how hard it would be to sell a harrier? I believe I heard of one
| retired military pilot buying one.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > But as a Defense Department spokesman clarified, a fully
| demilitarized jet probably wouldn't have been much fun, anyway.
|
| > "Even if the lad were able to get the plane from Pepsi, it
| would not be one he could fly," the official said at a Pentagon
| briefing.
| [deleted]
| samizdis wrote:
| > I believe I heard of one retired military pilot buying one.
|
| That would probably be this guy:
|
| https://brobible.com/culture/article/badass-pilot-series-art...
| duxup wrote:
| I would wonder more about maintenance and safety piloting for
| what is an unusual fighter.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Ex-military planes exist and can be flown. The fuel problem is
| easily solved by setting up a business around it and selling
| rides. This was done with several other jets.
|
| Recently the FAA has been making this hard, by not allowing
| passengers on planes that don't have a full certificate of
| airworthyness.
| kfprt wrote:
| >Recently the FAA has been making this hard, by not allowing
| passengers on planes that don't have a full certificate of
| airworthyness.
|
| After several crashes resulting in deaths.
| hawkinsw wrote:
| Pretty much a classic in every 1L law school class.
| Havoc wrote:
| Marketing agencies keep underestimating the number of crazy
| people out there that will not only crunch the numbers but
| attempt to execute.
|
| Like that guy that bought a pallet full of dessert to get
| unlimited flight tickets
| xwdv wrote:
| I remember seeing this commercial as a little kid and fully
| believing this was a real thing that could happen and someone
| could fly to school in a jet. I thought it'd be so cool if I
| could win and do that someday.
|
| I kind of miss being able to easily believe in something so
| outrageous like that. Nowadays I approach most things with
| extreme skepticism and a cynical opinion. The world has beaten me
| down.
| nickkell wrote:
| Would buying some magic beans from me cheer you up?
| billytetrud wrote:
| The article says his suit was rejected because ads don't obligate
| the advertiser to anything. That seems more or less false. False
| advertising is explicitly against the law. I don't understand why
| a ruling would be made implying that false advertising is ok. At
| very least, it seems Pepsi should have been fined for that.
| bagacrap wrote:
| I think it would constitute fake advertising if they accepted
| his money but failed to uphold their end of the bargain by
| giving him a functional jet. It's not fake advertising if Ford
| advertises a truck for $25k but then fails to sell one to you
| because, for example, they ran out of chips and couldn't make
| enough trucks.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > fake advertising if they accepted his money but failed to
| uphold their end of the bargain by giving him a functional
| jet.
|
| no, the money was for the points, the points were for merch
| selected from the catalog. Not giving him the points was
| actually false advertising.
| seoaeu wrote:
| But it would be false advertising if Ford said you could buy
| a truck for $5k, but told you they actually cost $25k when
| you showed up to buy it
| mypalmike wrote:
| It's not entirely unusual for automobile models to be in
| high enough demand that they are sold at higher than the
| advertised price (MSRP).
| Gene_Parmesan wrote:
| Nah, not really. Automobile pricing is closer to
| traditional K offer/acceptance laws. Additionally no car
| dealer would advertise such a deal without including a
| clause stating the price is subject to (usually many)
| conditions and could change at any time.
|
| False advertising is a rather narrow doctrine, one that by
| necessity has to interact with standard contract law. Cases
| where false advertising involves prices usually include
| issues like hidden fees (telecoms signing you up for X a
| month but then your bill includes Y fees that weren't
| disclosed to you). More commonly, false advertising
| concerns things like consumer deception - claims that
| something is "clinically proven" when it actually isn't,
| for instance.
|
| In general, in contract law, if the changed price is
| communicated to you before you have accepted the offer,
| then there's no issue. There are literally hundreds of
| years of precedent going back to the English common law
| describing what does and does not constitute an offer and
| what does and doesn't constitute acceptance of an offer.
| tzs wrote:
| If they don't actually have any $5k trucks but claim they
| do in order to lure people in to try to sell them $25k
| trucks that would be a bait and switch that would run
| afoul of the law in several states. The FTC would
| probably also have something to say.
| acheron wrote:
| "Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent
| advertising since my suit against the movie, The Neverending
| Story!" - https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Lionel_Hutz
| bryan0 wrote:
| > Leonard filed suit, claiming that Pepsi's ad had constituted
| as a binding offer.
|
| The article says the judge ruled it was not a binding offer for
| 3 reasons: 1. Advertisements are generally not considered
| offers in contract law. 2. The ad was obviously a joke. 3. An
| enforceable contract requires both parties' signatures.
| kolinko wrote:
| Fun fact ad 3 - in some countries (Poland) there is a concept
| in law of a public promise. If a corporation publicly
| promises something (a competition usually), they are obliged
| to act upon it, even if there were no signatures on the other
| side.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| In England and Wales (Scotland has its own legal system)
| there is very famous case law that says that an offer can
| be made to the world at large (through an advert in this
| case). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_S
| moke_Bal...
|
| Which may seem to apply, but this was an offer to add a
| guarantee to the terms. Whereas merely advertising a price
| is just an invitation for the buyer to make you an offer.
| Here is an almost as famous case.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_G
| B...
|
| I am not surprised our fellow common law jurisdictions like
| the US reached the same conclusion.
|
| The case law that makes up English civil law, especially
| the early stuff is really fascinating stuff to me. IANAL
| but understanding the contact law from these cases has won
| me several disputes in my professional life.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| "Above advertisement does not constitute offer as meant by
| the article 66 of Civil Code" :)
| ptsneves wrote:
| Written everywhere in otomoto. Lol never understood what
| that pesky caveat was there for.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| The legal form of "but I had my fingers crossed so it
| doesn't count"
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _3. An enforceable contract requires both parties'
| signatures._
|
| This really doesn't jive with what I know about contract law,
| so I checked the article, and it is more specific:
|
| _An enforceable contract requires both parties' signatures:
| Under existing law, any contract for the sale of goods worth
| $500+ must be evidenced by writing; Pepsi did not sign
| anything._
|
| Still, was Pepsi really _selling something for more than
| $500_? It 's an exchange for Pepsi points (not cash), and
| even though you can buy them, are they equivalent to cash?
| Also, on top of that, has anyone signed anything the last
| time they bought a $500+ laptop, PS5 bundle, unlocked cell
| phone, etc.?
|
| I know a contract has to meet all elements of a contact to
| actually be a contract, so the other 2 reasons are enough,
| but this 3rd reason seems out of place, given the situation
| and even what I learned in my contact law class.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| If the ad was a contractual offer to sell a Harrier jet, it
| would be generally governed by the UCC, not by basic
| contract law.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > That seems more or less false. False advertising is
| explicitly against the law.
|
| That's not the point that was argued, though. An advertisement
| doesn't oblige the advertise to engage in a specific
| transaction with a customer.
|
| This isn't uncommon. If you see a house advertised for sale at
| $500,000, the owners aren't obligated to sell you the house for
| $500,000 or even to sell the house at any price. An
| advertisement alone isn't a legally binding offer to complete a
| transaction.
|
| False advertising also requires an intent to deceive or
| mislead, or at least evidence that the advertiser behaved
| recklessly in the advertisement. The advertisement is obviously
| a joke and they wouldn't be able to find anyone to testify that
| that PepsiCo actually thought they would be selling a Harrier
| jet, so proving intent to mislead or reckless behavior would be
| nearly impossible when the entire premise was a joke.
|
| Regardless, I'm inclined to believe the judge who presided over
| this case and did the work of reading through all of the legal
| precedent.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| I mean, we can certainly believe the Judge applied the law
| correctly, but also disagree that the law should be this way.
| dvt wrote:
| > I mean, we can certainly believe the Judge applied the
| law correctly, but also disagree that the law should be
| this way.
|
| I'm not sure what issue you see with the law here. It seems
| to both be written and applied quite well. The Pepsi ad
| isn't really misleading or reckless, and obviously just a
| bit of fun hyperbole.
| torstenvl wrote:
| No reasonable person can disagree with the legal principle
| at issue. You are suggesting that if you place an ad on,
| e.g., Facebook marketplace, you should be _legally
| obligated_ to engage in the transaction with the first
| person to accept your asking price. Your position is
| indisputably absurd.
| vanattab wrote:
| To my mind the transaction was already halfway complete
| though so it's not like someone advertising a house for
| 500,000 and deciding not to sell when offered the
| 500,000. It's more like a car dealership saying if you
| buy 100 cars from use we will throw in a free house and
| then after you buy the cars they say nevermind..
| torstenvl wrote:
| And government contractors often expend considerable time
| and effort developing a bid pitch in response to a
| solicitation. That doesn't mean they are entitled to the
| contract. Your proposed contract law regime would break
| the entire world.
|
| Performance can be a method of accepting an offer and can
| create a contract. However, it's still necessary for
| there to _be an offer_ and not just a generic
| solicitation.
| ksaun wrote:
| I don't think gameswithgo's post, as written, presents
| any position on this specific judgment. (I read it as a
| more general statement that one can agree with a legal
| ruling while disagreeing with the underlying
| law(s)/precedent.)
| GavinMcG wrote:
| You should read the opinion. Ruling otherwise would
| essentially eliminate _obvious_ jokes from advertising, and
| the opinion makes a good case for just how obvious the joke
| was.
| laurent92 wrote:
| > This isn't uncommon. If you see a house advertised for sale
| at $500,000, the owners aren't obligated to sell you the
| house for $500,000 or even to sell the house at any price.
|
| In France, they do. If someone shows up and offers the
| advertised price, the deal is sealed as well. Even for $5m
| that you don't have.
|
| If they offer a lower price with conditions and the owner
| says yes, it is also binding. It can be on a simple free
| paper, and going through a notary is optional, even if
| recommended. The only exception is that the purchaser has 10
| days of legal withdrawal after signing the contract (only
| EUR300 notary costs). The seller can't withdraw, unless
| conditions were manually specified. I wasn't aware of that
| when I made an offer by email, fortunately the landlord
| explained me that I should list the exceptions/conditions in
| my own interest...
| duxup wrote:
| It was rejected on multiple points, one of them being that
| nobody reasonably would think a soft drink company was going to
| give them a fighter jet.
|
| I'm inclined to be more protective about false advertising and
| all... but not the the point of absurdity where we demand they
| provide someone a fighter jet... or $33m for $700,000 as
| compensation.
|
| Whatever we might feel about advertising, that result would be
| absurd and solve nothing.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| From memory, my understanding is that it did not obligate Pepsi
| because it was obviously* a joke.
|
| *obvious to any reasonable person.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| "Obvious to any reasonable person" is so vague. What happens
| when Poe's law is reached? Half the people will scream
| obvious while the other half scream obviously not! Also, the
| reasonable person would have to be raised and steeped in the
| culture. why would someone from another country, who doesn't
| understand US norms, be considered unreasonable? Pepsi is a
| large corporation that has been in posetion of USSR military
| gear (vague because I don't exactly remember what atm). Why
| wouldn't they be able to give a jet away? They are big
| enough, have possessed similar items, and run contests all
| the time. Seems legit to me (but I also haven't seen the ad).
| lkbm wrote:
| Here's the ad in case you're interested:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Thanks! Definitely Poe's law. They show what seem like
| awards with point values and include a jet with a point
| value. The jet landing at school seems like a joke, but
| not the jet itself, IMHO. Sure it's an outlandish prize,
| but they gave it a point value along with others. Maybe
| the way the case was brought, it fell apart, but that's
| gotta be false advertizing.
| SkittyDog wrote:
| I'd like to pose a serious question to you, which _might_
| run the risk of offending you--so fair warning, there.
|
| I understand the fact that _you_ believe your opinion is
| reasonable... It sounds like you also understand that the
| world broadly disagrees with you. A federal judge (Kimba
| Wood, no less!) disagreed with you... Since there was no
| appeal, I 'd gather that the guy couldn't find funds to
| continue his suit--so his backers seem to have disagreed,
| too.
|
| Is there a reason why you're more willing to believe in
| the idea that "All these people, including experienced
| legal minds, must be wrong", rather than "My own layman's
| intuition about the law must wrong"?
|
| I'm asking because I genuinely don't understand why you'd
| want to continue backing your POV in the face of evidence
| to the contrary. I may have missed something, and I'm
| curious what your thought process looks like.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Further down in the article, it gives 3 reasons why the court
| rejected it. One of which was reasonable characterization that
| anyone would make that it was a joke.
| mattmanser wrote:
| The reasons, for those interested but not going to read it,
| the final one seems a slam dunk too:
|
| _Advertisements are generally not considered offers in
| contract law: "Ads for the sale of goods (TV, radio,
| newspaper, newsletter)... are merely the requests to offer or
| negotiate" and an advertiser must accept an offer from a
| customer for it to be legally formed.
|
| The ad was obviously a joke: An "ordinary, reasonable person"
| would conclude that a soft drink company would not give away
| a fighter plane as part of a promotion.
|
| An enforceable contract requires both parties' signatures:
| Under existing law, any contract for the sale of goods worth
| $500+ must be evidenced by writing; Pepsi did not sign
| anything._
| dsr_ wrote:
| Here's the thing: did Pepsi come through on the other
| things advertised in that commercial?
|
| If they sent a leather jacket for 1450 points and a
| mountain bike for 3500, then it seems to me that it is
| against the public interest to allow a company to make such
| offers and then rescind them arbitrarily.
|
| That's why we get small print saying things like "screens
| are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while supplies
| last" or "at participating stores only" -- because without
| those disclaimers, we should be able to rely on statements
| about prices, promotions and availability.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > That's why we get small print saying things like
| "screens are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while
| supplies last" or "at participating stores only" --
| because without those disclaimers, we should be able to
| rely on statements about prices, promotions and
| availability.
|
| If they'd advertise a can for 99ct and make a can look
| like 1l when it is in fact only 0.5l you could reasonably
| say that one could've expected 1l cans - these cans exist
| and this would not be out of the ordinary, even though a
| bit cheaper than usual. If the can in the advertisement
| would be the size of a truck, it would be hard to argue
| that you really thought you would get that for 99ct.
|
| If they offer something that is a) very rare, b) insanely
| expensive and c) _not allowed to be owned by a private
| person_ , I find it very hard to argue that one could
| reasonably think this is an actual offer.
|
| I agree with you that we should not give companies
| endless leeway to deceive customers, but let's not
| discard common sense.
| ezekiel68 wrote:
| I'm absolutely not picking on no one when I point out this
| comment is yet another example of the hazards of applying
| apparent common sense to matters of law. One doesn't get any
| extra consideration from a judge for pointing out what seems
| false.
|
| Also, the article makes clear that plaintiff chose a legal
| strategy closer to contract breach than false advertising.
| vmception wrote:
| he lost on appeal and moved to alaska working in public
| service. to me that is considered failure.
| cycomanic wrote:
| It's interesting and a sign of the failures of the justice system
| that "the same judges" (not necessarily literally) rule >An
| enforceable contract requires both parties' signatures: Under
| existing law, any contract for the sale of goods worth $500+ must
| be evidenced by writing; Pepsi did not sign anything.
|
| While at the same time deem click through EULAs valid contracts.
| duxup wrote:
| >at the same time deem click through EULAs valid contracts
|
| Is this actually the case?
|
| I'm not sure that it is...
|
| Regardless the points made in the Pepsi case are quite
| different than an EULA. That was only part of the reasons for
| the decision in the Pepsi case.
| SkittyDog wrote:
| Some have, some haven't... Various US federal circuits are
| currently in dispute, so there are some interpretations where
| it's all legit, and others where it's not, or is limited...
| Also, various states have drastically different statutory
| laws that govern software sales & EULA enforceability.
|
| ... Point is, the parent poster is correct... A significant
| portion of legislatures & jurists believe EULAs to be valid
| contracts. Not all, but plenty enough.
| duxup wrote:
| I think the other user has since edited their post so we
| would be talking past each other.
|
| When I responded there was nothing about what " A
| significant portion of legislatures & jurists believe".
| cesis wrote:
| At one time Pepsi actually owned several USSR military vessels
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the...
| generj wrote:
| You have to wonder what the executives thought of this!
|
| Sounds like an interesting documentary ready to happen.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >You have to wonder what the executives thought of this!
|
| Based on the time period, in the words of Rick James,
| "cocaine is a helluva drug." If that was the actual reason,
| it makes total sense. If that's not the reason, then what the
| actual f were they doing?
| monocasa wrote:
| There wasn't a usable forex market for ruble to USD. At
| that point you drop down to essentially bartering.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| There weren't many products in the Soviet Union that could
| be sold in the west. They needed a commodity that was to
| western standards. Soviet steel had full scrap value in the
| west and the ships were mobile. Pepsi also traded for
| tomato paste.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| They were sold for scrap. They were less military vessels than
| large floating objects worth their weight in steel.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| They could have given him a Soviet warship instead:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PepsiCo#Soviet_Union
| 45ure wrote:
| PepsiCo seemed to have lost their collective minds in the 90's in
| their pursuit of fighting the Cola Wars, like it was some narco
| gang territory. This episode seems tame in comparison to the
| Pepsi Number Fever aka 349 incident, with a similarity to running
| an ad campaign, and then strong arming or swatting away
| claimants, as a cost of doing business.
|
| _Pepsi Number Fever, also known as the 349 incident,was a
| promotion held by PepsiCo in the Philippines in 1992, which led
| to riots and the deaths of at least five people_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Number_Fever
|
| https://www.phmurderstories.com/blog/pepsis-number-fever-199...
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| Reading the wiki article seems to indicate this is a different
| issue though. It was a system bug that led to approximately 64
| billion 2021 dollars erroneously being printed out as prizes in
| a single day. This was never factored in as a cost of doing
| business.
|
| This wasn't the same thing as putting a prize in an ad that was
| never meant to be redeemed since this was a bug to begin with.
| The problem is that an advertising campaign that quintuples
| your market share to a quarter of the soft drink market in a
| matter of months must have tapped into an extremely strong set
| of emotions and those will turn into an absolute fury if your
| campaign backfires so spectacularly.
| duckhelmet wrote:
| 'the Harrier was a US Marine Corps aircraft used extensively in
| the Gulf War. Capable of taking off vertically and carrying 10k
| pounds of bombs, it had been called the "most captivating and the
| most dangerous plane in the US military."'
|
| From a British Design by Hawker Siddeley in the 1960s.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
| hyperbovine wrote:
| This quote betrays a lack of understanding of the destructive
| power of other planes in the US arsenal. Depending on when it
| was uttered, the B52, B2, A10, AC130 and/or F22 all come to
| mind as being way scarier.
| jshier wrote:
| In this case it's likely "dangerous" refers to the plane's
| danger to the pilot, not the targets of its weapons. The
| Harrier was notoriously unstable in its VTOL configuration,
| as it was built before adoption of fly by wire systems that
| could keep it stable automatically, like the F-35B does.
| LaMarseillaise wrote:
| > most dangerous plane in the US military.
|
| Only for the pilot.
| generj wrote:
| Interesting story.
|
| Kinda hard to feel bad for the would be jet owner. He knew it was
| a joke but wanted to take advantage of the opportunity for
| arbitrage anyways.
|
| The more astounding aspect is that he was able to get investors
| in on his scheme.
| bagacrap wrote:
| he didn't even need the investors' money given that he knew the
| check would never be cashed.
| SteveGerencser wrote:
| But then he would have broken the law by passing a knowingly
| bad check.
| SkittyDog wrote:
| Potentially, depending on the state... But in California
| and many other states, its not actually a crime to simply
| pass a check that you know will bounce. There's another
| essential element of the crime: Intent to _defraud_ the
| recipient of the check.
|
| So if he felt confident in demonstrating that he had
| financial backers who'd cover the $700k if Pepsi delivered
| the airplane, then he might be able to beat the check fraud
| charge. But yeah, it seems like a pretty dangerous gamble
| to me.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I don't mind someone trying to arbitrage exactly one big
| expensive thing.
| amelius wrote:
| The sad thing is that his lawyers didn't inform him about
| "Advertisements are generally not considered offers in contract
| law", but still took his money.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I wonder if it could ever be considered fraud to accept
| payment for a case you know to be unwinnable, seeing as how
| the client would have to be operating under the assumption
| that the case is winnable.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| He'd need to get some new lawyers to sue the original
| lawyers! Lawyers all the way down...
| javajosh wrote:
| _> he was able to get investors in on his scheme._
|
| Small downside (legal fees, 1/7x), big upside (~50x return)
| plus they knew Pepsi would return the check. That liquid was
| available for other purposes. On the upside column, it probably
| felt good to fund the cheeky bastard.
| everyone wrote:
| What kind of psychopath puts so much effort into getting money by
| abusing the legal system?
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Haha, reminds me of when Pepsi had the 6th largest military force
| in the world.
|
| True story, see below.
|
| https://nickyoder.com/5-minute-history-pepsi/
| andrewmackrodt wrote:
| Something about the article is off. If purchasing a point costs
| 10 cents and the jet requires 7 million points, his cheque would
| need to be for $70,000,000, not $700,000.
| turingexam wrote:
| fyi think you mixed up dollars with cents
| jsploit wrote:
| Reminded me of this classic recording [0] of Verizon Customer
| Service failing to understand the difference between cents
| and dollars.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU
| ezekiel68 wrote:
| I remembered that ad campaign and (more vaguely) the lawsuit the
| moment I saw the headline here. Before I clicked the link I said
| to myself, "Harrier jet, right?" This made me happy since I
| sometimes indulge in fear regarding cognitive decline.
| 55555 wrote:
| You post this same comment every time this story resurfaces on
| the front page. :|
| speg wrote:
| Are you suggesting he is indeed on the decline? :(
| NieDzejkob wrote:
| I can't seem to find any other instance of this comment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-15 23:00 UTC)