0

I have an interesting situation on my facebook wall.

enter image description here

Take ten beers to a friend's house. One wins a motor.

Whose? Yours or friend's?

Basically in Cambodia there's a beer lottery you open a can and you can win another beer or money or motorbike. As far as I can tell guy brought 10 cans of beer to his friends and one of them motorbike. Who gets the legal right to keep it.

EDITED: IMHO buyer gets to keep it. As he can claim that when handling over the cans his intention was to provide the beer only (cans contents) and not motorbike. One simmilar case that could be used is barren cow where both assumed that cow was barren, court ruled that contract invalid... Same is here I am pretty sure that buyer didn't have intent on giving moto away... Although the case above is indeed contract law and beer can is a gift and not a contract... Does mutual mistake rule applies to gifts?

Who gets to keep it? Person who bought it or person who opened the can?

1

If the buyer gave the beer away, the recipient gets the winnings. But he could explicitly give away just the content of the beer can, and not the ring tab that entitles one to something of value. Ordinarily, one would understand the gift of a car of beer to include the can, so if that is not your intent, you should be clear that you're only giving away the fluid content, and you expect to get the can back. You could take the controversy to local courts and see what they think about this; maybe Khmer Brewery has contest rules which you can read.

| improve this answer | |
  • But buyer could claim that his intent was to give only beer and if person receiving would claim he thought he was expecting winnings too the there was no meeting of minds and whole thing is void. e.g he has to give can back... – pom Feb 16 '18 at 2:40
  • The intent isn't the issue, the question is whether A gave B a can of beer. If B just stole the beer, then that's a crime. If A didn't intent to give B the can of beer, then how did B come to be in possession of the can? Maybe you can explain that in your question. – user6726 Feb 16 '18 at 3:09
  • Why intent and meeting of minds do not apply here? – pom Feb 16 '18 at 3:19
  • Those are concepts pertaining to contracts, not gifts. – user6726 Feb 16 '18 at 5:52
  • Are you certain... one case that could be used against is barren cow en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_v._Walker where both assumed that cow was barren, court ruled that contract invalid... Same is here I am pretty sure that buyer didn't have intent on giving moto away... Although the case above is indeed contract law, and you are right beer can is a gift and not a contract... Do you think mutual mistake rule applies to gifts? – pom Feb 16 '18 at 6:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.