Visit our Popular Forums

Uncle Bob · 20-07-2018, 19:25

I do love it when a bush lawyer tries to out do a real one.

Fling on me hearties.

valhalla360 · 20-07-2018, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelkara

No no no. Having paid all the expenses up front for this hypothetical trip, I now need to invite friends to come with me. Some of my friends will "volunteer" to cover their share of the expenses, some may not ... It's not mandatory. Nor is it dictated which friends I do invite, purely coincidence that on this expensive trip the selection was made from among those who volunteered to contribute before I made the booking. Those too poor or cheap to volunteer a contribution, will be invited to come sailing with me on my cheap little 27fter at a later date.

Define "need to invite" that sounds like a commercial venture where you built you business plan around charging them. If the trip can't go forward without their payments, it doesn't sound voluntary.

Your comment gets rather convoluted and the order in which thing happen could change the result:
- If you invite a couple friends and they both without prompting offer to chip in, you are fine as it was voluntary.
- If you invite them but they don't offer to chip in, so you rescind the offer due to lack of payment and move on to other friends until you get ones who pay up, that suggests the offer is contingent upon payment and thus not voluntary.

valhalla360 · 20-07-2018, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelkara

What you're objecting to is that because the payment was made before the boat left the dock it somehow wasn't "voluntary".
.

While having the money change hands after the trip offers an additional layer of protection, that's a secondary issue. For the core issue, it doesn't really matter.

The issue is the expectation that is made clear to the guest that the trip is contingent upon them paying. Putting it in an advertisement or discussing it way at the beginning of the process and making the invite contingent upon payment suggests that it's not voluntary.

Kelkara · 20-07-2018, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The issue is the expectation that is made clear to the guest that the trip is contingent upon them paying. Putting it in an advertisement or discussing it way at the beginning of the process and making the invite contingent upon payment suggests that it's not voluntary.

Unless the ad actually says that it is mandatory, contribution is only a suggestion. You are still free to go up to the skipper and say "I'd like to go on your trip, but I'm not contributing anything to my expenses." and if the skipper likes you he's free to take you. Alternatively until you utter the words "I'm willing to pay for my expenses" he's free to leave you on the dock. You are not his guest until he lets you on board.

But I agree that specifying it as a requirement, or specifying an actual amount not contingent on it actually being an expense, is crossing the line.

valhalla360 · 22-07-2018, 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Unless the ad actually says that it is mandatory, contribution is only a suggestion. You are still free to go up to the skipper and say "I'd like to go on your trip, but I'm not contributing anything to my expenses." and if the skipper likes you he's free to take you. Alternatively until you utter the words "I'm willing to pay for my expenses" he's free to leave you on the dock. You are not his guest until he lets you on board.

But I agree that specifying it as a requirement, or specifying an actual amount not contingent on it actually being an expense, is crossing the line.

If the add says the contribution is $X.XX, the presumption the court is going to make is that it was not voluntary.

If a cute girl goes into a bar and flirts with the owner and he gives her a free drink, he's still running a commercial operation. He can also refuse to serve her, he's still running a commercial operation. That gets established when he sets up his business not when the first customer pays.

Of course, if you wind up not taking any money, then you have a gray area and you are probably fine. But if you are taking 4 people and the cute girl gets on free by flirting with the captain and the other 3 are told pay up or pound sand...your are still commercial as it was mandatory for the other 3.

Kelkara · 23-07-2018, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If a cute girl goes into a bar and flirts with the owner and he gives her a free drink, he's still running a commercial operation.

A better analogy is a party invitation with "BYOB" written on it. A private event with a genuine invitation to share expenses ... which is what we're talking about.

But this conversation is all academic to me ... the only time I have had a guest on my boat, we had a big fight at the fuel dock at the end with both of us trying to pay that the fuel attendant nearly ended up with a 100% tip.

valhalla360 · 23-07-2018, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelkara

A better analogy is a party invitation with "BYOB" written on it. A private event with a genuine invitation to share expenses ... which is what we're talking about.

BYOB has no implication of turning over money or goods to the owner to contol. If the ad says you give me money or goods and I'll distribute it to my preferences, that is drastically different. Also, if I don't want to drink, I can still attend the party without paying.

A better comparison would be the college kegger. When I went to school, they generally set the price to break even on the cost of the keg and some red solo cups. They had someone at the door collecting a few bucks to come in. Didn't stop them from being busted for running blind pigs.