T3BE44: Parental Promised Pizza Payment Predicament
Added 2024-10-16 09:12:46 +0000 UTCIt's OA Bar Prep with Heather! We get the answer to last week's hot firefighter question, and then a new question involving pizza and promised payment!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs
Comments
Secret answer E The pizza costs less than $20000 so Donald says they will have to sue him to get it, but since court fees far exceeds the cost of the pizza the pizza place refuses to go forwards with the suit. Instead they complain to the local media. Enraged, Donalds runs for president to get the pizza place deported. While doing this Donald stands on a stage and "dances" to music for 40 minutes. He then spends 10 years complaining about how unfair it was that he lost, eventually dying of old age.
David Bax (Spinobreaker)
2024-10-18 08:15:38 +0000 UTCOk so why would Donald say "if Scotty doesn't pay", huh? That says to me that he knows his adult son is a flake. Therefore, it's Donald's fault. Q. E. D is my final answer.
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-10-17 14:14:41 +0000 UTCWOOO a pity mention with my wrong answer, and runner-up for best patron name-- I'll take it!!
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-10-17 14:11:35 +0000 UTCGonna have to go with A because there's no consideration between Donald and the pizza place and consideration is a requirement for contracts.
We have moral luck at home
2024-10-17 07:50:07 +0000 UTCI’m on board with answer E that they should make Scotty pay, but as that isn’t an option let’s look at what they are. A) Third party contracts are tricky but I’m not convinced he is a third party as he announced he would pay. This is my backup answer but I think it’s wrong. B) oral promises are not as easily enforced but handshake verbal contracts are absolutely a thing; written contracts usually have priority but if there is no written contract than the verbal contract is valid. C) This is silliness; I’m sure there is a legal argument for how children can create liability for parents but Scotty is an adult and there is no legal requirement to pay for your adult children’s foolishness. D) Something this simple can’t possibly be correct because the law is way too complicated but sometimes maybe it’s not? This is the obvious moral answer, which means it’s probably not the right legal answer… but I think it might be for once.
Matt is a movie star ask him about The Gamers
2024-10-17 02:16:19 +0000 UTCB and C are obvious nonsense; oral contracts are valid (just can be more difficult to prove), and pizza is neither a necessity nor is Scotty a dependent child of Donald, but even if he were, Donald's obligations to Scotty would be irrelevant here. For A, sure, by default, a third party can't be held liable, but Donald guaranteed the payment. Guarantors are certainly a thing; it's little different than if he had consigned a loan or something. Therefore the answer is D, if Benzino's actually took legal action against Donald, which seems unlikely as he's a regular customer who is presumably otherwise decent. But they won't be doing favours like that again.
Graydon Armstrong
2024-10-16 21:42:02 +0000 UTCI say it's A. The way I see it, there are two (possible) contracts: 1. This little snot Scotty agreeing to pay money in exchange for pizza. 2. Donald shouting that he will pay for the pizza if Scotty refuses, in exchange for... nothing? My issue is that there is not any consideration given to Donald, and there was no two-way discussion where the pizza place accepted the deal with Donald. It's not a contract.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2024-10-16 20:30:34 +0000 UTCA and C are irrelevant distractions. The trick is distinguishing whether this is a guarantee - which in many common law jurisdictions and I assume in the US has to be in writing to be enforceable, or whether it's merely an authorisation for Scotty to order use Donald's account as his agent, which would be valid. Given the specific wording used, I think it falls on the line of being a guarantee, so will not be enforceable orally, making answer B correct.
Tom Evans
2024-10-16 19:43:14 +0000 UTCMy many long years working as a pizzasmith give me the background knowledge needed to identify the correct answer as D. If someone tells me over the phone that they're going to pay for the pizza, they're gonna pay for that pizza! Especially if it's got anchovies, I'm not putting that thing back in my car.
A string of unpronounceable profanity
2024-10-16 17:40:46 +0000 UTCDamn I guess I need to start playing. I agree, this is straightforwardly D. Imagine if C was true, though - I'm not sure necessity is even clearly defined legally, but it sounds like you'd have parents liable for their children's rent
Qaysed
2024-10-16 17:11:31 +0000 UTCGoing with D. I've learned from this show that an oral contract is a thing, so B doesn't make sense. Answer A may be true out of context, but in this case Donald said he would pay, so he is not a third party. Although Scotty is a childish person, he is legally an adult, and unless he is in a conservatorship situation (#freeScotty), his dad is not legally responsible for covering his ass, so C is wrong. I am struggling to wrap my head around the idea that ordering food for delivery is a binding contract--does that mean that anyone under 18 who orders a pizza is illegally entering into a contract?!--but I still think D is the best answer. Moral of the story: don't let your kid continue to call himself "Scotty" into adulthood. He might just act like a 7-year-old forever. 🤪
Kait from Seattle
2024-10-16 17:08:39 +0000 UTCI am going with D. A: This is my second choice, but I think he became a "cosigner" by telling that he would pay B: Oral contacts can be enforced C: Scotty is an adult and his parents aren't required to continue to pay for his food D: He said he would pay and now he gets to eat the pizza as well
Mike M
2024-10-16 14:57:24 +0000 UTCAnswer E: Scotty should be forced to pay because he's a spoiled brat and didn't inform the pizza place that he didn't actually want the pizza in a timely manner, so he still should be on the hook to pay for it. If Donald pays for it then he is a bad parent for allowing his child to reach adulthood with such entitled bratty behavior.
Peter Olson
2024-10-16 14:41:50 +0000 UTCMy guess is B considering how frequently you've all been saying oral agreements don't matter. But why is there no "E. No, because it's pizza, and if you don't pay then they just don't give you the food."?
abbott and costello who's on first cross examination
2024-10-16 14:29:07 +0000 UTCHeather’s laugh is so delightful!!! Appreciate the way she and Thomas work through these.
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-10-16 11:53:02 +0000 UTC
