Oklahoma Joes Fundraiser Kerfuffle

[swake]

Well maybe THAT explains why their flyer does not have the word "atheist" in it--because CQ learned being up front gets them turned down. Also, "plenty of [other] organizations" turning CQ down would lend credence/support to Joes' decision to cancel the event . Once groups know what CQ is really about, they turn CQ down as expected.

You know there are plenty of people that think that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that Catholics are weird and deluded and not really Christians.  What would your perspective be if he had done this to a Catholic group?

[cynical]

You want to have this debate with me? How about starting with the statute governing the definition of "mistake" (taking into account negligence is not sufficient); then focus on whether the remedy for the mistake is reformation, rescission, cancellation; then perhaps focus on the existence of a mutual mistake of fact arising from a failed meeting of the minds; then take into account the legal distinction between "motive" and "consideration"--as I remain unconvinced there was even an enforceable contract here. I will not get into the fraud issue because neither you nor I know the circumstances or statements/representation which were made (also, because there are several additional elements needed to establish fraud you overlooked in your post See 15 O.S. Sec. 58). Save your case law research and look at OUJI  23.33, 23.35, then you may want to rethink your view on unilateral mistake.

And best of luck proving your damages if there was a breach, other than perhaps some reliance. All I see is a crappy situation as a result of Joes not looking into CQ more timely.
 
If you want to keep it simple first, review OUJI, starting with:
Consideration:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74210

So let's have it out. And yes I practice contract law, so can you back pocket the condescension?

Guido, you're still talking around the issue. How can there be a mutual mistake where every essential element of the contract was based on facts both sides understood. Again, taking it back to Contracts I: Offer: In return for your organization holding its event at Oklahoma Joe's, we'll pay 10% of the gross proceeds to your organization.  Acceptance: Okay, we'll host our event at Oklahoma Joe's. Consideration: The promise to pay 10% is consideration for the promise to hold the event at Joe's. The promise to hold the event at Joe's is consideration for the promise to pay 10%. The deal was agreed to and even performed by the organization.

So, what is the mistake? How is that mistake mutual? How is a mistake by Oklahoma Joe's as to its own motivations relevant to the contract? If there is no mutual mistake, how are the remedies for mutual mistake relevant? Is this not just a case of buyer's remorse?

I am well aware of the jury instructions you cite. They don't support your argument. The first element of 23.35 requires the party seeking to get out of performing its contract to prove that it was not negligent in entering into the contract in the first place. In this case if Joe's only wanted to support Christian organizations, it should have said so up front, something it has not claimed to have done. It also could have conducted minimal research on the organization seeking to hold an event there and declined to enter into the agreement based on that research. That didn't happen. The third element of 23.35 requires the mistake to be common to both parties or that there was fraud or unfair conduct on the other party's part. Joe's did not claim fraud. There can be no serious claim that both parties were mistaken about the organization's non-religious nature. So how does 23.35 support Oklahoma Joe's claim for rescission?

The fraud instruction in 23.33, if it applies at all, is a double-edged sword. Only if the organization falsely claimed to be a Christian organization or if Joe's stated up front that it only supported Christian organizations, the organization might be guilty of fraud for not disclosing its atheist roots, excusing Joe's from performing. Since our hypothetical here is based only on facts that have been disclosed by the parties to the dispute, and since Joe's has not said that the organization intentionally misled it, only that it didn't want to support an atheist organization, it can't very well claim fraud. On the other hand, for Joe's to wait until the event was taking place to pull out of the deal shows such egregious bad faith that it might infer an intent to not perform the contract at the time it was entered into. That would be more than a mere breach of contract but would be the tort of fraudulent inducement. Prudent business owners are very careful about such things.

You didn't previously mention damages as a problem. Damages are simple enough to demonstrate, especially because the event was taking place when management backed out of its deal. Multiply the gross proceeds of sales to the participants times the agreed-upon percentage, plus pre-judgment interest. Perhaps offset it by the fair value of the publicity the organization has received.

Only by making up a misrepresentation claim out of whole cloth can Joe's defend itself. It is very difficult to claim misrepresentation when the other party has accurately published its position. It was simple enough for posters on this forum to find out what the organization stood for. It would have been equally simple for Joe's. They didn't bother, which takes them out of the purview of 23.35.

[BKDotCom]

Well maybe THAT explains why their flyer does not have the word "atheist" in it--because CQ learned being up front gets them turned down. Also, "plenty of [other] organizations" turning CQ down would lend credence/support to Joes' decision to cancel the event . Once groups know what CQ is really about, they turn CQ down as expected.

retread.... it's a science camp, not an atheist camp.

If there's a music camp where no religious hymns are sung..  is it an <dr evil>atheist music camp</dr evil>?
If there's a sports camp where nobody mentions Jesus... is it an <dr evil>atheist sports camp</dr evil>?
If there's an art camp where nobody paints the virgin Mary... is it an <dr evil>atheist art camp</dr evil>?

If two bible thumping Christians have a discussion about anything wherein nobody asks "what would Jesus do"..  are they having an <dr evil>atheist discusion</dr evil>?

[sgrizzle]

retread.... it's a science camp, not an atheist camp.

If there's a music camp where no religious hymns are sung..  is it an <dr evil>atheist music camp</dr evil>?
If there's a sports camp where nobody mentions Jesus... is it an <dr evil>atheist sports camp</dr evil>?
If there's an art camp where nobody paints the virgin Mary... is it an <dr evil>atheist art camp</dr evil>?

If two bible thumping Christians have a discussion about anything wherein nobody asks "what would Jesus do"..  are they having an <dr evil>atheist discusion</dr evil>?

If the music camp's mission statement starts with "a camp for atheists and kids of atheists" then yes, it's an atheist music camp.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You need to lighten up a bit here, because I think you are reaching a bit now. Being incompetent to means lacking skills or ability. Because he may not have brought his "A" game to the restaurant biz doesn't make him incompetent. And besides, I really like Joes, so maybe it is you who is incompetent at rating good barbecue, or maybe it's me, if we use your broad brush.

Fact is, your upset because assuming the very worst here, Joes failed to exercise due diligence or even used poor judgment. That's not incompetence, that's what happens in life.  

Actually, I think he really just made an error in judgement that will end up costing him some customers, but gain him others, so the net result will probably be no worse than a wash...and due to some of the ones he is likely to gain, and the preponderance of that attitude in OK, he may well be ahead by a noticeable amount.  This could be a sound business decision that will benefit him.


I guess I could be in error about him, but past discussions about barbeque put Albert G's at or near the top in every conversation for a wide group of people, I suspect I am more mainstream than not on that issue.  And since I don't really care that much for OK Joe, that just means I have a little more finely parsed selection mechanism than many/most....

And in the past, he has demonstrated the ability to make magnificent barbeque - currently, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to continue it today...it isn't the same as when I have eaten it in the past.

[Hoss]

Actually, I think he really just made an error in judgement that will end up costing him some customers, but gain him others, so the net result will probably be no worse than a wash...and due to some of the ones he is likely to gain, and the preponderance of that attitude in OK, he may well be ahead by a noticeable amount.  This could be a sound business decision that will benefit him.


I guess I could be in error about him, but past discussions about barbeque put Albert G's at or near the top in every conversation for a wide group of people, I suspect I am more mainstream than not on that issue.  And since I don't really care that much for OK Joe, that just means I have a little more finely parsed selection mechanism than many/most....

And in the past, he has demonstrated the ability to make magnificent barbeque - currently, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to continue it today...it isn't the same as when I have eaten it in the past.

It may be a quantity/quality attitude.  I'm glad that BurnCo has avoided that route.

[guido911]

Guido, you're still talking around the issue. How can there be a mutual mistake where every essential element of the contract was based on facts both sides understood. Again, taking it back to Contracts I: Offer: In return for your organization holding its event at Oklahoma Joe's, we'll pay 10% of the gross proceeds to your organization.  Acceptance: Okay, we'll host our event at Oklahoma Joe's. Consideration: The promise to pay 10% is consideration for the promise to hold the event at Joe's. The promise to hold the event at Joe's is consideration for the promise to pay 10%. The deal was agreed to and even performed by the organization.

So, what is the mistake? How is that mistake mutual? How is a mistake by Oklahoma Joe's as to its own motivations relevant to the contract? If there is no mutual mistake, how are the remedies for mutual mistake relevant? Is this not just a case of buyer's remorse?

I am well aware of the jury instructions you cite. They don't support your argument. The first element of 23.35 requires the party seeking to get out of performing its contract to prove that it was not negligent in entering into the contract in the first place. In this case if Joe's only wanted to support Christian organizations, it should have said so up front, something it has not claimed to have done. It also could have conducted minimal research on the organization seeking to hold an event there and declined to enter into the agreement based on that research. That didn't happen. The third element of 23.35 requires the mistake to be common to both parties or that there was fraud or unfair conduct on the other party's part. Joe's did not claim fraud. There can be no serious claim that both parties were mistaken about the organization's non-religious nature. So how does 23.35 support Oklahoma Joe's claim for rescission?

The fraud instruction in 23.33, if it applies at all, is a double-edged sword. Only if the organization falsely claimed to be a Christian organization or if Joe's stated up front that it only supported Christian organizations, the organization might be guilty of fraud for not disclosing its atheist roots, excusing Joe's from performing. Since our hypothetical here is based only on facts that have been disclosed by the parties to the dispute, and since Joe's has not said that the organization intentionally misled it, only that it didn't want to support an atheist organization, it can't very well claim fraud. On the other hand, for Joe's to wait until the event was taking place to pull out of the deal shows such egregious bad faith that it might infer an intent to not perform the contract at the time it was entered into. That would be more than a mere breach of contract but would be the tort of fraudulent inducement. Prudent business owners are very careful about such things.

You didn't previously mention damages as a problem. Damages are simple enough to demonstrate, especially because the event was taking place when management backed out of its deal. Multiply the gross proceeds of sales to the participants times the agreed-upon percentage, plus pre-judgment interest. Perhaps offset it by the fair value of the publicity the organization has received.

Only by making up a misrepresentation claim out of whole cloth can Joe's defend itself. It is very difficult to claim misrepresentation when the other party has accurately published its position. It was simple enough for posters on this forum to find out what the organization stood for. It would have been equally simple for Joe's. They didn't bother, which takes them out of the purview of 23.35.

I am not talking around anything. It's just that you were all over the map on the law in my opinion. I was also responding to your issues by setting straight your legal points of view, as well as positing several questions which work against your points. For example:

Mistake. You have got to be kidding as to your analysis on mistake being mutual.  Mutual mistakes are frequently found when one party fails to provide enough information to allow the other party to make an informed decision. This would be the classic case if CQ left out information it knows would tip off folks like "Christian" Joes of their true atheist beliefs.

Fraud.  You only set out maybe 3 of the factors to establish that defense to contract, presumably the fraud towards inducement to contract. You omitted several elements or even factors to be considered that I had to clarify for the benefit of those reading this (and perhaps trying to learn something). Here is a citation to general authority I frequently cited to on this fraud and deceit question:

McCain v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 1998 OK 94, ¶ 11, 975 P.2d 865, 867:
a) Defendant made a material representation; b) that the representation was false; c) Defendant knew it was false or made it recklessly, without regard for its truth; d) Defendant made it with the intention that Plaintiff act upon it; and e) injury was suffered by Plaintiff as a result.

Citing, inter alia, 76 O.S. § 3; See also, Bankers Trust Co. v. Brown, 2004 OK CIV APP 1, ¶ 14,


Consideration. I have no idea what the terms of the contract were, if both sides came out and said, "You give me this, I give you that", OR if Joes just said, "yeah, I like to help kids, have your fundraiser here".  If it was the latter--which I believe is the truth and not some contrived/factually devoid tit for tat--that is motive and not consideration. No contract. For everyone, this is what Oklahoma's jury instruction 23.8 says about consideration:

The law will enforce a promise only if the person to whom the promise was made gave something of value or promised to give something of value in exchange for the promise. This is the requirement of consideration.
If you find that [state what is claimed to be the consideration for the contract], then you should find that the requirement of consideration was satisfied, and you should go on and decide the other issues in the case. Otherwise, you must find that there was no contract.

Damages. I raised this issue because folks having been talking about Joes paying CQ money for canceling the event. Also, you mentioned that Joes made a representation to share the proceeds. I just assumed you would argue that if there was a breach, CQ would presumably argue that they were out the consideration given for the contract and should be allowed to recover that.


I want to add some info on mutual mistake of fact and unilateral mistake, but I am behind now.

[guido911]

If the music camp's mission statement starts with "a camp for atheists and kids of atheists" then yes, it's an atheist music camp.

Griz has not been this jazzed on a subject in here in a long time.

[Vashta Nerada]

Arent verbal contracts still recognized in Oklahoma?

[guido911]

Arent verbal contracts still recognized in Oklahoma?

Yes.

[custosnox]

Well maybe THAT explains why their flyer does not have the word "atheist" in it--because CQ learned being up front gets them turned down. Also, "plenty of [other] organizations" turning CQ down would lend credence/support to Joes' decision to cancel the event . Once groups know what CQ is really about, they turn CQ down as expected.

try again, it's right in the brochure they give out. http://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/CQBrochureSept2011.pdf

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[guido911]

try again, it's right in the brochure they give out. http://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/CQBrochureSept2011.pdf

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Compelling link.

Bottom line, and here's the one question you cannot answer: Why did Joes cancel if it KNEW what CQ was all about? Do you and others think Joes knew CQ was atheist, and in some nefarious scheme decided to schedule its fundraiser any way only to pull the rug out on or near the date of the event? Or, was it more likely just a mistake? If it is the former, stock up:



Apparently, Joes did not want atheists making money off its name or on its property. Period.  

With that said, I will share with you the one thing I have learned in this thread, and that is that charitable giving needs to be reexamined and strictly scrutinized. I will read every damned detail of every sign, brochure, or other document because God (yes, I said God) forbid that if I make a mistake the freakin whiners will come out in full force. And for this group (CQ), seeing how it responded, I will make sure all those I know in my circle give nothing.

[BKDotCom]

Compelling link.

I think this one should work
https://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/cq_brochure_3.2013.pdf
the camp quest site has links to that 404 brochure all over the place

[AquaMan]

I think this one should work
https://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/cq_brochure_3.2013.pdf
the camp quest site has links to that 404 brochure all over the place

Free thinking at any age.

Oh...the horror...the horror....

"They have to be carefully taught." South Pacific

[Breadburner]

It's his biz he can do what he wants.....