5 ms·
It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It might be different if Pepsi had offered a
by burfog 7y ago
It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one.
It might be different if Pepsi had offered a flying unicorn, a human slave, psychic powers, a teleporter, a time machine, a genie with 3 wishes, a seat in congress, or a fully operational death star.
The best argument you could make for Pepsi's failure would be that the jet was more restricted at the time. If acquisition hit legal difficulties, the judge should have forced Pepsi to make a substitution of greater cost. It should hurt. For example the Boeing 747 is a real jet that could be purchased freely at the time.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It was tested in court. They didn't agree this was reasonable. I don't think it would be reasonable either. Tech people think law is like maths with absolutes - it's not - there's a big test in law of 'come on is that really what a reasonable person would think - use your common sense' and this fails that.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoAnd some of us here disagree the court decision is reasonable. This isn't "tech thinking in math ways". This is plain and simple ethics: Pepsi purposefully lied to people, by making an offer they didn't intend to honor - and then they weaseled out of it when someone actually took them up on their offer. Offer is IMO completely reasonable, for the reasons 'burfog gives. If Microsoft or Google advertised a contest in which the prize is a Falcon 9, I would consider this a believable offer too, because they can totally afford it, probably just out of margins on the sales increase they'd get for announcing the contest.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> Pepsi purposefully lied to people How many times a day to you ‘purposefully lie’ to people when telling a joke? Do they all sue you?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoJokes are clearly labeled as such. Lying to people for your benefit only to later defend yourself with "it was just a joke!" after they take you seriously isn't jesting; it's plain assholery.
- cheesymuffin 7y agoLuckily the American legal interpretation doesn't depend on the opinions of Polish software developers.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIf a Polish software developer manages to convince enough Americans then sure it does :).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]