Oklahoma Joes Fundraiser Kerfuffle

[Stanley1]

If Joe thought that he was mislead (and truth is, NONE of us know if he was or not), he has every right to pull out during the event.

As for my YMCA example above, bad example.  I was in a hurry, and was basing my comment on personal experiences at the YMCA camps, where religion wasn't a factor at all.  That said, I'm sure there are hundreds of summer camps in Tulsa that don't have a thing to do with religion.

[carltonplace]

If Joe thought that he was mislead (and truth is, NONE of us know if he was or not), he has every right to pull out during the event.

As for my YMCA example above, bad example.  I was in a hurry, and was basing my comment on personal experiences at the YMCA camps, where religion wasn't a factor at all.  That said, I'm sure there are hundreds of summer camps in Tulsa that don't have a thing to do with religion.

Atheists don't have a thing to do with religion either...that is kinda their point.

[patric]

If Joe thought that he was mislead (and truth is, NONE of us know if he was or not), he has every right to pull out during the event.

OTOH, if he breached a contract...

[heironymouspasparagus]

If Joe thought that he was mislead (and truth is, NONE of us know if he was or not), he has every right to pull out during the event.

Which would pretty much mean he is incompetent at running the business that constitutes his chosen career path.  There is no scenario where he doesn't come out smelling bad on this deal....

[custosnox]

Who really cares (apparently Joe)?

The point is that he (or his wife) made an agreement with this group.  The group then rallied their membership, facebook peeps, twitter twits, and the public to show up.  Lots of people showed up, and after many of them got their meals, Joe exclaimed that he would not pay the group.

Very cut-N-dry situation here.  His reasoning was secondary to the fact that he redacted a commitment to a group of customers and engaged poor poor customer relations.  The fact that he kept money intended for a non-profit organization is unethical.  When the customer made their purchase, they did so on the premise that 10% of the funds would help the group that they drove to Oklahoma Joe's, and purchased a platter of food, to help.

It's not rocket science.

And that is exactly the problem.  Trust me, the group gets turned down by plenty of organizations for their lack of beliefs, and it is never a big deal, it's pretty much expected.  It's the fact that they threw them out in the middle of the fundraiser because of it after they agreed to it is the problem.

[guido911]

Which would pretty much mean he is incompetent at running the business that constitutes his chosen career path.  There is no scenario where he doesn't come out smelling bad on this deal....

Wow, he is incompetent based on this ONE event? Must be nice being perfect. If the manager was misled or operated under a mistaken belief, then as a matter of law there can be no contract to breach. People here have mentioned the contract, has one been published? What was the consideration given up by CQ for the contract?

In my line of work, people make mistakes all the time, and the idea that a mistake must equal financial liability (money changing hands) is incorrect.  CQ is attention whoring right now.

Maybe the lesson learned here is that Joes, and all businesses for that matter, needs to doubt all innocent-enough sounding organizers that "free think" and assume that expression is a euphemism for atheist--because GOD knows they will not put that information in their damned flyer.

[guido911]

Trust me, the group gets turned down by plenty of organizations for their lack of beliefs, and it is never a big deal, it's pretty much expected. 

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow, he is incompetent based on this ONE event? Must be nice being perfect. If the manager was misled or operated under a mistaken belief, then as a matter of law there can be no contract to breach. People here have mentioned the contract, has one been published? What was the consideration given up by CQ for the contract?

No, not just this one - there are several "events" wrapped up into this one... first is the fact that whatever he used to do at the barbeque contests didn't make the trip to the restaurant.  Every contest - and, granted, there have only been two that impinged on my consciousness - where I got to taste his food, I was blown away by how good it was.   Then the restaurant....well, it has been a pretty big disappointment.  I'm betting that he used better grade materials at the contests than he does in the restaurant....maybe economic considerations overrode great food...??  Maybe changed the methods and/or recipes??

And I am not concerned about a legal contract.  If his wife is authorized to make that type of commitment, then he is obligated morally and ethically to fulfill it - she making the commitment in his name is the same as if he made the commitment.  Or would that be a case of the concept of selective morality?

If she is NOT, then he has another management issue that he hasn't resolved.  Which is another issue of management competence.... 


Oh, yeah.... Yes, it is....nice being perfect!

[cynical]

Wow, he is incompetent based on this ONE event? Must be nice being perfect. If the manager was misled or operated under a mistaken belief, then as a matter of law there can be no contract to breach. People here have mentioned the contract, has one been published? What was the consideration given up by CQ for the contract?

In my line of work, people make mistakes all the time, and the idea that a mistake must equal financial liability (money changing hands) is incorrect.  CQ is attention whoring right now.

Maybe the lesson learned here is that Joes, and all businesses for that matter, needs to doubt all innocent-enough sounding organizers that "free think" and assume that expression is a euphemism for atheist--because GOD knows they will not put that information in their damned flyer.

Guido, unilateral mistake doesn't get them off the hook. Under Oklahoma law, in order to rescind a contract because of a mistake, the mistake has to be mutual. Also, to find a contract here is so easy it is trivial. You want consideration? Here it is: in return for Joe's promise of a share of the proceeds, the group agrees to hold its event at Joe's. Win-win and plenty of consideration to spare, especially when the organization performed its end of the bargain.

Even if Joe's wanted to claim fraud, they would need to prove that the organization intentionally misled them as to some material fact. It is highly unlikely that a court would find the lack of religion of the organizers to be material, and it is even more highly unlikely that a court would find a misrepresentation of a fact that is publicly broadcast on the organization's web site. I gather you don't practice contract law.

[guido911]

Guido, unilateral mistake doesn't get them off the hook. Under Oklahoma law, in order to rescind a contract because of a mistake, the mistake has to be mutual. Also, to find a contract here is so easy it is trivial. You want consideration? Here it is: in return for Joe's promise of a share of the proceeds, the group agrees to hold its event at Joe's. Win-win and plenty of consideration to spare, especially when the organization performed its end of the bargain.

Even if Joe's wanted to claim fraud, they would need to prove that the organization intentionally misled them as to some material fact. It is highly unlikely that a court would find the lack of religion of the organizers to be material, and it is even more highly unlikely that a court would find a misrepresentation of a fact that is publicly broadcast on the organization's web site. I gather you don't practice contract law.

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?

[guido911]

No, not just this one - there are several "events" wrapped up into this one... first is the fact that whatever he used to do at the barbeque contests didn't make the trip to the restaurant.  Every contest - and, granted, there have only been two that impinged on my consciousness - where I got to taste his food, I was blown away by how good it was.   Then the restaurant....well, it has been a pretty big disappointment.  I'm betting that he used better grade materials at the contests than he does in the restaurant....maybe economic considerations overrode great food...??  Maybe changed the methods and/or recipes??

And I am not concerned about a legal contract.  If his wife is authorized to make that type of commitment, then he is obligated morally and ethically to fulfill it - she making the commitment in his name is the same as if he made the commitment.  Or would that be a case of the concept of selective morality?

If she is NOT, then he has another management issue that he hasn't resolved.  Which is another issue of management competence.... 


Oh, yeah.... Yes, it is....nice being perfect!

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. 

[Townsend]

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.

It shouldn't matter.  Might as well turn someone down for any philosophical difference if this is the case.  Even other Christians.

[Hoss]

It shouldn't matter.  Might as well turn someone down for any philosophical difference if this is the case.  Even other Christians.

Even Catholics!  I love the circular logic in this 'kerfluffle'...

[AquaMan]

I once donated the use of my shuttle bus to a fund raiser for cancer research, shuttling visitors from parking to activities. The driver, the gas, the bus and my time. It had a logo on the side of the bus for my business of a grizzled old sailor with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth.

Once the trips began one person noticed the small cigarette and complained to the sponsors. That person held a grudge against me because I had not used him to paint the logo. I was asked to remove the logo or leave. It was stupid, selfish and shortsighted of them but I nonetheless used masking tape to cover the egregious part of the image.

My point is that the fund raising personnel were so afraid of their "base" that they were willing to offend those who had freely offered services to help them to avoid conflict with bullies. It happened with the breast cancer people, it happens in Congress it happens everywhere that someone feels obligated to punish those who dare to disagree with them.

I fail to see any defense of this businessman's actions as legitimate. He made a commitment and didn't honor it. Whether it passes muster in a court of law is not as important as how it was viewed in the court of public opinion.

[TheArtist]

  It was bad form.