(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Mr Ilg woke from a night out at the strip club with no memory of the previous night but a credit card bill for more than $28k so does he. A) Pay the bill. C) Sue the club because he was drunk & 'no longer capable of conducting financial transactions'

13 Dec 2012 12:25 PM   |   8654 clicks   |   Daily Mail
Showing 1-50 of 181 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  
If I don't remember it didn't happen.

Unless the club wants to show me a video of me up and moving during my blackout, then I'm guessing they drugged me and charged up my credit card.

img202.imageshack.usView Full Size


stripper thread!

13 Dec 2012 10:39 AM
DammitIForgotMyLogin    [TotalFark]  
So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

13 Dec 2012 10:47 AM
Rincewind53     
Hahahaha, that's exactly the kind of thing I imagine is going on at Larry Flynt's Hustler Club every time I drive past it.

13 Dec 2012 11:06 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


It does. You have impaired judgement, however if you get behind the wheel you cant use that impairment as a mitigating circumstance

img820.imageshack.usView Full Size

13 Dec 2012 11:08 AM
Slaxl     
There's no guarantee that the transactions he was making, whilst absolutely paralytic, were done in good faith. They could bring him beers, ask for his credit card, he thinks "pfft, $10-$20 tops", but he gets back in the morning he sees that it was $500 a drink, and they ran it through twice, or maybe even 3 times for the one drink, whilst no where in the bar does it say beers are $500.

If a dance is $300 there's no way he had nearly 100 of them. He was just ripped off because they saw he was drunk so could take advantage and ramp up the prices.

Strip bars are very dangerous places to lose control whilst drunk.

13 Dec 2012 11:10 AM
Teknowaffle     

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


Well, considering every strip club in the world is pretty much a clip joint, especially the bigger ones, it probably only applies to these types of cases where "services" are provided.

13 Dec 2012 11:26 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  
He said he had a huge gap in his memory and woke up the next day in Delaware after being driven home by a club employee

He got done over so hard that the employees decide to drive you home.... damn....


img442.imageshack.usView Full Size

13 Dec 2012 11:30 AM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  
I've been waiting for this to happen. A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

13 Dec 2012 11:52 AM
AbbeySomeone     
Many moons ago I had a brief gig as a B girl in a strip club in the Quarter. I was broke but walked out the second night I was there after learning what the place was all about.
Get 'em in, get a credit card, blah blah.

Because People in power are Stupid: I've been waiting for this to happen. A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.


Shame is a big factor in these negotiations. Many people will pay to get it to go away.

13 Dec 2012 12:02 PM
Theaetetus     

Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.


Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

13 Dec 2012 12:07 PM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer


"is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party."

They drove the drunk guy home. They must have known this manifestation.

And asshat, I'm not in Law School nor have I ever made that claim.

13 Dec 2012 12:20 PM
Slaxl     

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


...and would a credit card payment count as a 'contract'? I think it should be payment under false pretences, or something, because they used the fact he was drunk to overcharge, probably repeatedly, for something he may not even have wanted.

13 Dec 2012 12:20 PM
AbbeySomeone     

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

13 Dec 2012 12:23 PM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  

AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.


Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.

13 Dec 2012 12:25 PM
cig-mkr     
Ah, the old "I was too drunk to know that I was drunk" defense.
Was outlawed in North Carolina, because too many drunk drivers got off using it.

13 Dec 2012 12:28 PM
Citrate1007     
At 28,000, yes and he probably has a very strong case.

13 Dec 2012 12:30 PM
Citrate1007     
Reads Article

Citrate1007:
At 28,000, yes and he probably has a very strong case. should have hired a better lawyer.

13 Dec 2012 12:31 PM
AbbeySomeone     

Because People in power are Stupid: AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


Fantastic. I prefer young, hot boys as long as I don't have to deal with their drama. Cocaine? Nah.
Methinks you don't have a real good law savvy. The Judge will do whatever he is bribed to do, and if he is not corrupt he will abide the law which will cancel drunken/impaired contracts.

13 Dec 2012 12:32 PM
Hot Carl To Go     
They should have made him settle up at five thousand dollar intervals or something, if it's legitimate.

13 Dec 2012 12:32 PM
The Jami Turman Fan Club     

Because People in power are Stupid: AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


It could easily be worse than that. They may have given him rapenol or whatever it's called. He's the second guy this has happened to.

In Minnesota, at least, serving alcohol to a a person who's visibly drunk is a crime. At the very least, the bar should lose its liquor license.

13 Dec 2012 12:32 PM
offmymeds     
FTA: However, the New Yorker's case was thrown out by a judge and adding to what must have already been a terrible hangover, he will now have to pay the credit card bill of $28,109.60.

Not to mention his "attorney's" fees.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

13 Dec 2012 12:34 PM
acaciaavenue     
Subby has obviously not heard of this scam.

1. Provide potential "mark" with lap dances, women and promises of "happy endings".
2. Slip drug into drink and ring up CC with things he didn't purchase when he passes out.
3. Leave him back at the hotel.
4. Profit.

13 Dec 2012 12:36 PM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  

Because People in power are Stupid: Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


Can I have that offer?

img849.imageshack.usView Full Size


I bet I can make the cost of doing business less than profitable for you...

/willing to try

13 Dec 2012 12:37 PM
The Third Man     
Was "Ilg" what he said when he saw the bill?

13 Dec 2012 12:37 PM
Plant Rights Activist     
If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?

13 Dec 2012 12:38 PM
Superjew     

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

13 Dec 2012 12:38 PM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I bet I can make the cost of doing business less than profitable for you...


Is that you? You are interesting.

13 Dec 2012 12:39 PM
SDRR     

Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?


All of them?

13 Dec 2012 12:42 PM
biyaaatci     
I thought this was going to be about a broken atm at the strip club running on an ancient Apple computer.

13 Dec 2012 12:42 PM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  

AbbeySomeone: I prefer young, hot boys


Um, have a seat over there.

13 Dec 2012 12:44 PM
Abuse Liability     

Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?


NSFW
Link

13 Dec 2012 12:45 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost     
i50.tinypic.comView Full Size

13 Dec 2012 12:45 PM
LaraAmber     
Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

13 Dec 2012 12:45 PM
radiovox     
Well now wait...how many times have we seen bars and bartenders get in major trouble because they over-served a patron who was later involved in a drunk driving wreck? Bars can be held liable but judge's ruling may cause a bit of a legal stir.

'There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication.'

So, which is it? Does this now mean bartenders can keeping feeding you drinks until you get alcohol poisoning and not be held liable? Can they suddenly decide to start serving you ultra high end liquors and charge $500 a shot after you're so drunk you can't even decide for yourself?

Something tells me this judge doesn't really get out much or live in the real world.

13 Dec 2012 12:46 PM
Because People in power are Stupid    [TotalFark]  

LaraAmber: Do you have any proof that this makes sex better


Only one way to find out.

13 Dec 2012 12:47 PM
Magorn    [TotalFark]  

AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.


Don't even need to go there. It is a crime for a bar to serve alcohol to a person they know to be intoxicated. Therefore all the drinks he consumed after being drunk were illegally provided and you cannot validly contract to do an illegal act. Furthermore since the bar had to commit a crime to get him to the point where he consented to the 300+ lapdances it would be against public policy to enforce the "contract" he made for those services.

13 Dec 2012 12:47 PM
TNel     
Unless they have video of him (I'm sure they have camera's in there) this should have been a very easy win for him. $28k is one hell of a bill for one night at a strip club. Did he get the all night treatment by every girl in there.

13 Dec 2012 12:47 PM
eviljimbo     
where's GD when we need her?

13 Dec 2012 12:47 PM
pedrop357     
What's interesting is that a person who's drunk/drugged can claim they were sexually assaulted because they were too intoxicated, yet they can't claim there robbed or defrauded because they were too intoxicated?

I always wonder how this would work with an age of consent nexus: If an 18 year old (in California for example) is very drunk and a 17 year old has sex with them, who's guilty of a crime? The 17 year old for having sex with someone unable to consent, or the 18 year old for having sex with a minor because being drunk is not an an excuse?

13 Dec 2012 12:48 PM
Plant Rights Activist     

Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?


Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.

13 Dec 2012 12:48 PM
justanotherfarkinfarker     

LaraAmber: Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures.


It's art. Sexy sexy art. In the case of the pics posted. Now throw in a few c-section scars bad ink and clear heels and it gets sad (not that it still can't be a good time). But the stuff posted is quality.

/don't bring a CC to a strip club, that is bad idea 101.

13 Dec 2012 12:49 PM
Abuse Liability     

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


In answer to your questions. It not only makes the skin appear more taut (and therefore youthful), but that type of flexibility usually speaks to some amount of physical fitness indicating not all the work will need to be done by you. From personal experience though no. Women that are that flexible tend to be smaller (and bonier, sharp knees, etc...) in size, which isn't always that comfortable. As far as body building chicks go... nobody wants to sleep with someone with bigger biceps.

13 Dec 2012 12:50 PM
rustypouch     

Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?


Tricky to say. Do we have any examples of a woman who's been drinking who consents to something, later regrets it, finds someone else to blame, and gets them into legal trouble?

13 Dec 2012 12:51 PM
Private_Citizen    [TotalFark]  
Let's see... If a girl goes into a bar, is overserved to the point she blacks out, and wakes up to discover she was gangbanged by the patrons, she has a strong criminal case. But a guy goes to a bar, is overserved to the point he blacks out, and wakes up to discover he's been financially gangbanged by the bar - and he's expected to just live with the shame and damage.

It's sexist!!!

/only partly kidding.

13 Dec 2012 12:51 PM
ThighsofGlory     

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He said he had a huge gap in his memory and woke up the next day in Delaware after being driven home by a club employee

He got done over so hard that the employees decide to drive you home.... damn....


[img442.imageshack.us image 300x400]


His house has already been burglarized.

13 Dec 2012 12:51 PM
DownDaRiver     
i877.photobucket.comView Full Size


WTF Subbsey?

13 Dec 2012 12:52 PM
Cheron     

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


The one with the young lady bent the wrong way is a little unsettling. As for limber poses the idea of the new and exotic have an appeal. Just like a new outfit, toy or scenario

13 Dec 2012 12:52 PM
Talondel     

DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated Persons
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.


If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.

13 Dec 2012 12:53 PM
justanotherfarkinfarker     
Judge is wrong. Any bar will tell you they have to remove over-served people (and shouldn't over-serve to begin with..

/"I didn't want to be drunk in public, I was drunk in a bar and they threw me out"

13 Dec 2012 12:53 PM
show me    [TotalFark]  
The only time I have ever had a credit card lifted and actually used was after going to the Gold Club in Atlanta back in the late '90s when I was working an IT gig there. They had bought gas and used it at a mall. Thankfully I got it all back.

13 Dec 2012 12:57 PM
Showing 1-50 of 181 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined