How Much Mental Anguish Can a Trip Win Cost?
According to an article in the Huntington News, Margaret Jane Smith experienced such a disappointment when she won a trip to London from Regis and Kelly. Not that her prize was taken away. She and seven of her friends and family members (plus four additional guests, who paid for the trip) were flown to London, as promised, including a six-night stay at the Waldorf Hilton and a guided sightseeing tour of London attractions including Big Ben, the House of Parliament, and Westminster Abby. But they didn't receive some of the excursions promised in the prize description. Namely, "Dinner at the Restaurant Ivy, followed by a night at the theatre, a luxury picnic in the park, and tickets to Tate Britain, National Gallery and Victoria & Albert Museums."
Now, so far, I'm with the winner. While a trip to London for eight people and a stay at a top hotel would be a fantastic prize for me, I can understand being disappointed over missing the night on the town and the museum tickets.
But what I don't get -- and what I find really awful, frankly -- is that Ms. Smith is now suing the sponsors for $50,000 plus legal fees! Why? Because she claims that not getting a luxury picnic, a dinner out, theater tickets, and museum tickets caused her to suffer "mental impairment, mental anguish and emotional distress, including serious emotional distress of a severe and debilitating nature, anxiety, medical bills, and costs, and loss of capacity to enjoy life."
Puh-leeze.
What do you think? Do you think that Ms. Smith's lawsuit is reasonable? Do you think that it's a ruse to get the sponsors to settle for a fair price as compensation for the prizes she missed? Do you think that the trip that Ms. Smith received was totally diminished by missing out on the extra features? Do you think a lawsuit like this will convince sponsors to be more exacting in fulfilling sweepstakes prizes, or will it discourage them from offering big prizes at all? Let me know by clicking the "comments" button below.
Related Articles:
Ms. Smith's Full Complaint
Comments
I would be dissappointed too…but I wouldn’t file a lawsuit. People are too quick to do that and it is irresponsible. While I don’t feel the sponsors should be sued, I do feel they should find a way to make it up to her in some way.
We sure do live in a litiginous society. They should have to send her a check for the cost of the dinner and such but forget the mental anguish. Things happen, things slip through the cracks, if you can’t handle it and still have a good time – don’t enter. Tells me she doesn’t know what real mental anguish is.
Karen, Aimen, I agree with both of you. That portion of the prize had a monetary value, and I think they should compensate her for that with cash or other prizes of equal or greater value. But $50,000? Because she can’t be happy anymore? Because she didn’t get a fancy picnic in London?
And the complaint accuses the sponsors of making outrageous claims, for saying that those extra features would be part of the prize.
I kind of hope that there’s an angle I’m missing here, or more to the story than what I’ve heard…
I would agree with Laura..people file suit for about anything…the company should do something to make up for the error of their ways
I meant Karen, not Laura…excuse me Karen for my error.
So what you missed a picnic and tickets to a museum! You went to London with your family for FREE!!!!! Get over yourself.
Now that’s really pitiful and pathetic! How can anyone even think about suing someone for sweepstakes prize which is essence a gift? I can understand a reimbursement of some kind just for goodwill’s sake but come on now!
Everyone’s become sue happy – Sure, they should do something to make up for it but $50K? Maybe they can have a picnic with Regis & Kelly instead & go to MONY.
This problem is reflected in everyday life. People don’t talk to one another,now, neither do countries. All she had to do was call and ask for the funds that the prizes that were deleted would have cost. It’s a shame, people sue for nonsense.
IN the words of Gecko in Wall Street “GREED IS GOOD” but Honey that was a Movie and you knwo how that ended. Have a trip where I can take 7 of my best friends to London I would do it in a HEART BEAT. Hope you lose and the lawyers take you ro the cleaners
Well, it’s obvious she has a mental impairment.
The question is did the sweepstakes win cause it?
There are some sad,sad people in this world.
Ship her to Mexico.
To soothe her ruffled feathers, I’d be happy to send her a prize I won from Frito Lay a few years back – a pea-green and white beach mat with a full-color photo image of Shrek. It’s so ugly, I experience mental distress just having it in the house.
I won a prize, valued at $330.00, and received a somewhat similar prize that was valued at $139.00. When I went back to the website, they were still offering the original prize which I thought was weird.
I told them that I thought they should make good on the prize they said they could no longer get that model radio, so they sent one that was in stock.This is not a good practice,and I told them so. Ihave sent it back with a promise that I would get a better model( even though it still is not an equal item. If they continue to offer a prize and then sent a lesser one who is going to stop them, unless they get sued and it cost them more for the suit than to send the orignal prize??
While I do not believe Margaret Smith suffers from the disorders she cites in her legal suit against Regis and Kelly, I do believe she has a valid point in suing. As tzigg stated, sweepstake sponsors need to be held to their word in regards to the prizes they offer. It’s a matter of integrity and the old adage: Say what you do and mean what you say, or in this case, promise. Besides, what were their reasons for not fulfilling the extra features of the prize? Cost too much? I think not for a top-rated show like that. Unless, it was a matter of availability, like with the theatre show, the prize should have been paid in full.
Entry to the Tates, NG, and V&A is free except for special exhibitions. You don’t get tickets.
Tzigg, MBlu, you bring up good points. I do feel that sponsors, as well as entrants, should be required to stick to the rules of their sweepstakes. They certainly have the right to substitute other prizes, if that’s what their rules state, but they shouldn’t just leave out a portion of the prize altogether. Maybe this suit will settle for a reasonable amount, and convince other sponsors to stay true to their rules.
Sometimes the sponsors just can’t get the prize promised in the original contest rules. Had the company been smart, they would have just substituted the dinner a museum with something comparable. They were wrong to leave it out all together.
That said, I think the lawsuit is over the top. My solution to a problem like this one is to go to the top. I would have written a very nice letter to the president of the network, thanking him for the prize along with expressing my disappointment that they did not even follow their own rules. Not only was it unethical, but technically illegal (as the left it out, not substituted) and could they please forward a replacement. I would also CC the VP of Marketing, VP of Sales, and anyone else related to the promotion at the company.
You would be amazed at how fast situations will be rectified. They want to keep their customers (and viewers) happy so they usually do what they can.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS WILL HAVE SAD REPURCUSSIONS FOR THE “SANE” SWEEPERS… THAT’S WHAY SO MANY STATES HAVE RESTRICTIONS SO THEY AREN’T IMPACTED BY THESE NUISANCE SUITS.
ALMOST AS BAD AS ALLOWING THE INMATES AT OUR PRISON TO INSTITUTE ACTIONS…
The humanity is divided in positive thinking people and negative thinking people. She is probably part of the first group. Not thankful and that makes her unhappy. Too bad.
If you are going after them, you better take a laywer with you.
If they promised her those things, then she should have received them, but I don’t think a lawsuit is necessary. The contest should deliver what is promised and stated in the rules and if it can’t for some reason, then compensation should be given to make up for it. I don’t think this woman needs $50,000 but she should get something for not receiving the complete list of prizes promised.
OK, I’d be pretty dissapointed too, but not enough to sue. But yes, enough to pursue some other form of REASONABLE compensation in lieu of the activities they were supposed to do and didn’t get to. I wonder if the sponsors offered any explanation while on the trip? If so, I wouldn’t have waited until I was back home to assert myself try to work on a mutually agreeable alternative. If it meant THAT much, I would have done something while still in London. And seeking a $50,000 compensation is a tad greedy IMHO. Wow…
I’m for Mrs. Smith.It’s misrepresentation by the company offering the sweepstakes. Multi-million dollar companies should not advertise 1 thing and give another. As for the description of law suit charges, the sensational rhetoric is just for the courts & most likely written by her lawyer. I’d be very upset if i took 8 guests to London expecting to do a lot of activities and we just sat in the hotel. I wouldn’t have the $$ to compensate for 8 people who also weren’t expecting to spend their own money on activities. This company made her look bad in front of people she thought enough about to take on vacation with her. It’s unlikely she will get the 50k, you always ask for more than you expect to get from the court anyway.I do hope she gets a decent compensation!
wow and i felt bad for writing an e-mail to subway. just an email. she went to london for cryin out loud. and let’s not forget she stayed in top notch hotel. what a whiner baby. she needs to come back to planet earth
She should feel very blessed to have won. Sueing is putting out bad karma that will surely return to bite her in the behind someday. Focusing on the dissapointment most certainley ruined a very cool trip.
Living a joyful life is about rolling with the punches and looking for the silver lining in any situation.
I hope her bad judgement won’t cause the sponsor to nix any future promotions. What they did wasn’t cool, but maybe it couldn’t have been helped. They should have done SOMETHING to make up for cancelling part of the winning package, but that was their call, and we can’t control the actions of others. We can, however, control our own.
I would think that Regis & Kelly and the sponsors would want to be known as honest and truthful, and this situation certainly leaves those qualities out. This was more than “just” a picnic and a museum, there were several things. If I were promised a trip overseas with certain excursions, I would be planning on it and could not afford to do it on my own. Then you are stuck with open time that should have been filled and paid for. I agree that people are too sue happy now days, but I think the sponsors should step up and fork over the cash with a hearty apology – publicly. They promised it publicly – making a big whoop-di-do as they usually do on that show, now follow through.
Um, someone may have already mentioned this but the three museums she was going to win tickets to are all free, along with most museums there. They are so civilized in London!
I’m a little skeptical that she was stuck in London without any way to do any activities, too, since apparently she and her friends paid not only to bring extra people along, but also to extend the trip so that they could visit other parts of Europe on their own dime. So yeah, those activities had a value that she should have received, but I don’t think they were stuck in a hotel room staring at walls because they didn’t get them.
Unbelievable really – shame on her! No wonder Americans have a bad international reputation. Whatever happened to “thankful” and “gracious”?
I thinkk that the show failed to deliver as promised.
Imagine that you pay for cable tv and you turn it on and there is no signal.
Or you went to get an oil change, and you think they did, they charged you for one, but they didn’t
Or you win a prize, and what you get is not representative of what was promised.
If actions of others are not enforced, then they will continue to provide bad service or worst. I agree that society has become sue-happy, but in some cases the litigation will create case law for a better future.
I say, we don’t know what happened, and personally, the posters who focused on her being greedy/they would have been thrilled to have won, are missing the big picture.
Judy, I’m always right & Anita make very valid points, and Contests said what I was thinking – I want to know the rest of the story.
I’m a big proponent of us sweepers following the rules and feel the sponsors should make good on them too.
As tzigg notes, it’s more about accountibility than the prize/lack of fulfillment of some prizes.
Normally, I discourage sweepers from doing things that might deter sponsors from offering prizes, ie: complaining, cheating {which caused them to create annoying verification codes} and the like, but by NOT holding them to the same exacting standards they require from us has to be a PR nightmare for them when something like this comes to light. Not to mention the bad taste left in the winners mouth, and how she has probably done a negative verbal or even viral campaign against them, thereby sullying their reputations, and possible losing them business – the exact opposite of what sweeps are utilized for instead of traditional marketing.
I AM extremely grateful to win any prize, and can understand her disappointment. Would I have dealt with it differently? Absolutely – I feel suing is a last resort, when all other avenues fail –
Carolyn and I agree on that point, and like her, I agree contacting them for restitution is the logical and equitable approach.
However, having not been there, or knowing if she did indeed try other means first and was rebuffed {possibly because they felt the same as some of you: that she shouldn’t be so greedy, that they personally would have been thrilled with just part of the prize} I can’t opine on that point.
I liken this to expectations – if we are DQ’ed by a technicality we missed, do we really expect them to award us the prize anyway? If they bowed to pressure and did so, it would set a {poor} standard. Likewise, if they are allowed to fail in following their own rules, that sets a precedent that also affects all sweepers.
Bottom line? If we go along with the sponsor on this one, because “it was no big deal” we invalidate a fellow sweeper and encourage them to believe we will tolerate it.
I have just come upon this story so everything may be settled by now, does anyone know what the official rules stated? From what I have read the prize was to fly to London, stay for six nights, side trips etc. and then to fly home. Perhaps there was an added cost to the sponsors when the family wanted to not fly home after the six nights and that was comparable to not having all the extras.
With that many people on a trip there may have been confusion, but upon returning, i would have contacted regis and kelly (who needs this publicity?), the better business bureau and consumer action. Suing is last, certainly always an option, but usually the former gets the results you need. I think this is not about being greedy, but getting what you were promised. How come you have to abide by the rules and they dont?