Race wants prize money back

I think it's almost comical (in a sad way) that the RD is suing to get precisely the amount of money back that he personally takes every year from the charity as salary.

What a joker and charlatan.

I'm thinking next year's IRS form he'll have to claim 70 hours per week to account for all this extra time he's spending on this.

Rdsurfingmadonna wrote:

Sorry about the long reply.....

You view this as a fund raising social event. Some athletes view this as a race with prize money and that is an earning opportunity to them.

Neither you or them are wrong. Ask for the money back, take what you get gratefully and move on.

I suggest:

Next year give out no performance based cash prizes at all..

Write up the circumstances surrounding your mistakes . . Indicate that overwhelmed with the demands of devoting most of your waking hours to doing good deeds you did not realize you had written a misleading prize structure and compounding that had written checks and paid out more prize money than you intended. Explain that those who saw the event as a charity event gave back their prize money and those who viewed it as a pay for performance opportunity did not. This brought you to the realization that paying performance bonuses is not in the spirit of your event. It attracts people who want to make money and this is not the intent of the event.. Perhaps you will come to the conclusion all cash rewards take away money to fund the charity and stop all the cash prizes.

Yeah you will not get the entry fee from those few who enter because of the prize money but you will not have the expense of prize money and no chance to put yourself in a situation where you hurt the organization by not paying attention to details of the cash flow.

Keep up the good deeds and understand running for prize money is a business for some and they take earning as seriously as you take giving.

pete and re-pete wrote:

Do the math Bob wrote:

If it's so obvious, why did you write checks for the wrong amount?

Can we just keep repeating this question until the RD answers it?

Please explain to us simpletons how you yourself handed out the wrong amounts (Twice, on the giant checks AND on the real checks) when you had previously determined what they were going to be? Had you forgotten, and referenced your own "very obvious" website, and then misunderstood it?

+1, but pretty sure this is an opportunistic troll we are dealing with.

If it's so obvious, why did you write checks for the wrong amount?

As someone who knows this race director, I don't think this is a troll. Look at the details of information posted. Plus he shut up as soon as he realized he'd admitted the mistakes were his fault but just wants others to take financial responsibility for his mistakes

Lawyerist wrote:

There is so much precedent on the RD's side, it would take a miracle for him to lose in court.

I am a longtime LRC poster and I have seen some very impressive names weigh on over the course of this thread. Names that I have not seen in a while. One of them is a very successful and respected attorney and I know he would not weigh in if it weren't for the fact that he is 100% correct in stating that the RD doesn't have a leg to stand on with this case.

I am of the opinion that the RD posts today are not truly the RD at all. Maybe the BroJos can let us know.

The above post is one of the many reasons WiT is the mayor of the Legends Lounge.

WiT, you're the Man!!! Best post in the whole thread.

Longtime Love You wrote:

Lawyerist wrote:

There is so much precedent on the RD's side, it would take a miracle for him to lose in court.

I am a longtime LRC poster and I have seen some very impressive names weigh on over the course of this thread. Names that I have not seen in a while. One of them is a very successful and respected attorney and I know he would not weigh in if it weren't for the fact that he is 100% correct in stating that the RD doesn't have a leg to stand on with this case.

I am of the opinion that the RD posts today are not truly the RD at all. Maybe the BroJos can let us know.

that Bob is the Bob in question. And please don't call me Bob!

I nominate this as thread of the year!

It's about running, money, politics, ethics - everything wrapped up in one.

Star wrote:

I nominate this as thread of the year!

It's about running, money, politics, ethics - everything wrapped up in one.

Thread of the year for sure.

Longtime Love You wrote:

Lawyerist wrote:

There is so much precedent on the RD's side, it would take a miracle for him to lose in court.

I am a longtime LRC poster and I have seen some very impressive names weigh on over the course of this thread. Names that I have not seen in a while. One of them is a very successful and respected attorney and I know he would not weigh in if it weren't for the fact that he is 100% correct in stating that the RD doesn't have a leg to stand on with this case.

I am of the opinion that the RD posts today are not truly the RD at all. Maybe the BroJos can let us know.

I don't know your lawyer friend, but he is way off base in stating the RD would not win this case. I suggest you get another attorney.

Rdsurfingmadonna wrote:

We've already paid all of the elite athletes. And we paid them what is listed on the website. Unfortunately I gave out about $10,000 too much.

Bob, you made the fault, so you have to pay the $10,000. Do the right thing. The injured sea lions will be grateful.

I've also been contacted - i received the $200 fourth place prize money in the male costume division. The RD wants half of my prize money back because I didn't run the race in my costume. I believe he changed the web site to add this new rule after the fact. It is not my fault that I was unable to run in my Shrek costume that I spent months in training just to make.

Should I return the money? I believe in saving the oceans and surfers or whatever, but as a local sub elite costume designer I view this as a real earning opportunity. If the costuming community doesn't support this race, who will?

Longtime Love You wrote:

Lawyerist wrote:

There is so much precedent on the RD's side, it would take a miracle for him to lose in court.

I am a longtime LRC poster and I have seen some very impressive names weigh on over the course of this thread. Names that I have not seen in a while. One of them is a very successful and respected attorney and I know he would not weigh in if it weren't for the fact that he is 100% correct in stating that the RD doesn't have a leg to stand on with this case.

I am of the opinion that the RD posts today are not truly the RD at all. Maybe the BroJos can let us know.

In law, unjust enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.[1] A common example is when a party contracts to provide a service, but the contract is terminated prematurely due to a breach, and the contractor unjustly receives no compensation for partial services rendered.

The concept of unjust enrichment is based upon the Roman legal maxim "no one should be benefited at another's expense" (nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cvm aliena iactura).

The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment states: Unjust enrichment is enrichment that lacks an adequate legal basis: it results from a transfer that the law treats as ineffective to work a conclusive alteration in ownership rights."

I hope the above puts to bed any and all doubts about who is in the right in the eyes of the law.

LOL, that would be great if this qualified as a case of Unjust Enrichment. Fortunately for the OP, this is more like a case of False Advertising.

"False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders, especially consumers. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. Truth refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label."

I hope this puts you to bed.

Just another troll wrote:

I've also been contacted - i received the $200 fourth place prize money in the male costume division. The RD wants half of my prize money back because I didn't run the race in my costume. I believe he changed the web site to add this new rule after the fact. It is not my fault that I was unable to run in my Shrek costume that I spent months in training just to make.

Should I return the money? I believe in saving the oceans and surfers or whatever, but as a local sub elite costume designer I view this as a real earning opportunity. If the costuming community doesn't support this race, who will?

One of my favorite quotes:

Some people need sequins, others don't.

Edith Head

It is a fitting answer for so many things. . .

There is also the concept of what the reasonable person would do

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

not to mention acting in good faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith

Which describes how a prize winner in this race would have regarded receiving, spending and not returning their advertised prize money.

If they advertised an $1,800 award and mistakenly wrote a check for $18,000 - that would be unjust enrichment.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

There is also the concept of what the reasonable person would do

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

not to mention acting in good faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith

Which describes how a prize winner in this race would have regarded receiving, spending and not returning their advertised prize money.

I think a lot of people stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

Star wrote:

If they advertised an $1,800 award and mistakenly wrote a check for $18,000 - that would be unjust enrichment.

But is it out of the realm that a judge would side with the RD due to his "Total prize money" posting, which was on the site prior to the race?

In other words, is a judge (the law) going to care about the semantics of how WE (competitive runners) typically view a prize layout, or will he say "The site listed total prize amount, which any one can see means the money was to be split in each category?"

I honestly have no idea, I am asking.