Pearsall V. Court Case Summary

1. Briefly describe the facts. These two men were friends for over 25 years. After work each day, they would go and get their special “package” from the liquor store, which included two lottery tickets, which never turned out to be a major winner. On December 16, 1982, Pearsall purchased the package without any monetary support from Alexander. However, Alexander was who scratched the tickets only to find neither was a winner. Later that day, Alexander went and purchased another package; letting Pearsall scratch one and he scratch the other. Alexander’s ticket was a $20,000 winner, which he cashed and refused to give anything to Pearsall. Pearsall brought a suit against his friend, stating it was a breach of an agreement. 2. Which facts
What legal issue(s) does this cases illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)? Consideration is the primary legal issue for this case. One of the basic elements of consideration is legal sufficiency. The promisor, Pearsall, had legal benefit. 4. List ALL of the elements the plaintiff must prove to win the case as stated in the court opinion or textbook. For example, if the case is about undue influence, the plaintiff must show 1. The unfair persuasive of a person, 2. By a person in a dominant position 3. Based on a confidential relationship. The plaintiff, Pearsall, must prove that the promise had consideration, making the promise enforceable. Consideration has to have two key elements to satisfy the requirements. It has to have legal sufficiency, meaning it is something of value in the eye of the law, and there has to be a bargained-for exchange.
EXPAND PERSPECTIVE 5. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party? The prevailing party being Pearsall argued that by exchanging mutual promises to share in the proceeds of the winning tickets, adequate consideration was given. He also argued that not only did Alexander give his verbal consent, he also snatched the tickets and anxiously scratched them when he contributed nothing to purchase the tickets making it evident he was “in on it” to share the proceeds. Another key point is dealing with legal detriment. Alexander, by his verbal promise, was obligated to split half of the proceeds with Pearsall and failed
Briefly cite and summarize the other cases you found that were more recent, from a different jurisdiction, had interesting facts, and/or applied a different legal rule (*See the instructions at the end for finding other cases) Another similar case I found is dated March 26, 2010 in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky titled Slone, appellant v. McDowell, appellee. The cases facts open with that the “Appellant and Appellee resided together as an unmarried couple for several years. On August 19, 2002, the parties won $250,000 in the Kentucky Lottery. They initially reported that Appellant was the sole winner because Appellee owed significant child support arrearage to his ex-wife. As such, the proceeds were deposited into a separate account bearing only Appellant's name. The parties continued to live together until approximately 2004. During such time, they made numerous joint and individual purchases with the lottery proceeds, including a new mobile home and a prefabricated garage, both of which were located on property owned by Appellee. Following the parties' separation in 2004, Slone filed a complaint in the Boyd Circuit Court asserting that she was the sole owner of the lottery proceeds and demanding reimbursement for all expenditures made by McDowell, as well as possession of the mobile home and garage. A CPA was hired to assess how all of the money was spent, and As a result of his findings, the DRC recommended that a "just distribution" of the lottery proceeds had