Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc.
| Citation | 240 N.W.2d 853 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | BUICK-PONTIA,INC,No. 9180,9180 |
| Parties | Lloyd B. GROVE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHARBONNEAU, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Rewards and prizes are governed by the general rules of contract, and to collect a prize the person must perform all of the requirements of the offer in accordance with the published terms so as to create a valid and binding contract.
2. The general rule of the law of contracts which provides that where an offer or promise for an act is made, the only acceptance of the offer that is necessary is the performance of the act, applies to prize-winning contests.
3. Whenever a word is used in an agreement between two parties, and the courts are called upon to interpret the agreement, such word, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, is to be given its ordinary popular meaning as generally understood among people.
4. If the language of a contract (including a prize-winning contest) is ambiguous such that it leaves an uncertainty as to its meaning, the language should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. Section 9--07--19, NDCC.
Mackoff, Kellogg, Kirby & Kloster, Dickinson, for defendant and appellant; argued by Ward M. Kirby, Dickinson.
Anseth & Rustad, Williston, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Gerald H. Rustad, Williston.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Stark County District Court awarding to Lloyd B. Grove damages equivalent to the value of the automobile which was offered by Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc. as a prize in a golf contest.
The Dickinson Elks Club conducted its annual Labor Day Golf Tournament on Septmeber 1 and 2, 1974. Posters were placed at various locations in the area announcing the tournament and the prizes to be awarded to the flight winners and runners-up. Included in the posters was an offer by Chrbonneau of a 1974 automobile 'to the first entry who shoots a hole-in-one on Hole No. 8.' This offer was also placed on a sign on the automobile at the tournament. Grove testified that he learned of the tournament from a poster placed at the Williston golf course. He then registered for the tournament and paid his entry fee.
The Dickinson golf course at which the tournament was played has only 9 holes, but there are 18 separately located and marked tee areas so that by going around the 9-hole course twice the course can be played as an 18-hole golf course. The first nine tees are marked with blue markers and tee numbers. The second nine tees are marked with red markers and tee numbers. Because of this layout of the course, the tee area marked '8' and the tee area marked '17' are both played to the eighth hole. The tee area marked '17' lies to one side of tee area '8' and is approximately 60 yards farther from the hole.
Grove scored his hole-in-one in hole No. 8 on the first day of the tournament while playing from the 17th tee in an 18-hole match. He had played from the 8th tee previously on the same match and had scored a 3 on the hole.
Grove claimed he had satisfied the requirements of the offer and was entitled to the prize. Charbonneau refused to award the prize, claiming that Grove had not scored his hole-in-one on the 8th hole, as required, but had scored it on the 17th hole.
The trial court found that Grove had performed all of the conditions set out in the offer by Charbonneau so that there was a completed contract which Charbonneau had unlawfully breached by failing to donate the car. The court awarded damages to Grove of $5,800.00, plus interest.
Charbonneau claims the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that Grove had properly accepted and performed in accordance with the offer made by Charbonneau so as to impose a contractual duty upon Charbonneau to deliver the automobile or in the alternative be liable for damages. He also claims the trial court applied the wrong rule of law and that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
The selected following definitions found in Section II of The Rules of Golf as approved by the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland, effective January 1, 1974, may be helpful:
'Flagstick
The 'flagstick' is a movable straight indicator provided by the Committee, with or without bunting or other material attached, centered in the hole to show its position. It shall be circular in cross-section.'
'Hole
The 'hole' shall be 4 1/4 inches in diameter and at least 4 inches deep. If a lining be used, it shall be sunk at least 1 inch below the putting green surface unless the nature of the soil makes it impractical to do so; its outer diameter shall not exceed 4 1/4 inches.'
'Putting Green
The 'putting green' is all ground of the hole being played which is specially prepared for putting or otherwise defined as such by the Committee.
A ball is deemed to be on the putting green when any part of it touches the putting green.'
'Teeing Ground
The 'teeing ground' is the starting place for the hole to be played. It is a rectangular area two club-lengths in depth, the front and the sides of which are defined by the outside limits of two markers. A ball is outside the teeing ground when all of it lies outside the stipulated area.'
Similar and other definitions may also be found under the title, Golf, page 559, of Volume 10 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, copyrighted in 1973.
The offer made by Charbonneau Buick stated that a 1974 Pontiac Catalina would be awarded to the 'first entry who shoots a hole-in-one on Hole No. 8.' Grove claims that his performance was an acceptance of this offer and created a binding contract.
Rewards and prizes are governed by the general rules of contract. There must be a genuine offer and an acceptance. To collect a prize, the person must perform all of the requirements of the offer in accordance with the published terms in order to create a valid and binding contract under which he may be entitled to the promised award. Holt v. Rural Weekly Co., 173 Minn. 391, 217 N.W. 345 (1928).
'. . . the offerer has a right to prescribe in his offer any conditions as to time, place, quantity, mode of acceptance, or other matters which it may please him to insert in and make a part thereof, and the acceptance, to conclude the agreement, must in every respect meet and correspond with the offer, neither falling short of, nor going beyond, the terms proposed, but exactly meeting them at all points and closing with them just as they stand, and, in the absence of such an acceptance, subsequent words or acts of the parties cannot create a contract.' 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 42, page 674.
See also § 9--01--06, NDCC.
The acceptance or performance may not be a modification of the offer. Greenberg v. Stewart, 236 N.W.2d 862 (N.D.1975); Swanson v. Linder, 75 N.D. 751, 33 N.W.2d 62 (N.D.1948).
Substantial compliance, however, is sufficient. Scott v. People's Monthly Co., 209 Iowa 503, 228 N.W. 263 (1929).
The general rule of the law of contracts which provides that where an offer or promise for an act is made, the only acceptance of the offer that is necessary is the performance of the act, applies to prize-winning contests. 87 A.L.R.2d 661, Prize Contests--Rights and Remedies.
'The promoter of such a contest, by making public the conditions and rules of the contest, makes an offer, and if before the offer is withdrawn another person acts upon it, the promoter is bound to perform his promise.' 87 A.L.R.2d 661, Supra.
In Scott, supra, the court in substance stated that where the promoter made the offer of money prizes and fixed the rules, the contestant had to substantially comply with the terms and conditions fixed in the promoter's offer to constitute an acceptance, and unless contestant did so there was no meeting of the minds and no contract. The court said that the burden is upon the contestant is such a case to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the promoter's offer was accepted by substantial performance under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer, i.e., the rules of the contest.
The offer under consideration was as follows:
'As an added addition to this year's Labor Day Tournament, Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac will donate a 1974 Pontiac Catalina 4-door sedan with factory air to the first entry who shoots a hole-in-one on Hole No. 8.'
There were also some other prizes offered by the sponsor of the tournament. The entry fee was $20.00. From the advertisements and publications of the tournament there appears to be no question that the game was to consist of 18 holes, rather than 9 or some other number.
The problem arises from the fact that the golf course used for the tournament was a 9-hole course upon which 18 holes were played by going around the course twice. If the course would have been an 18-hole course we do not believe a question would have arisen because each hole would have had its own designation from 1 through 18, but because a 9-hole course was converted to an 18-hole course each hole had an actual number and a hypothetical number.
Under this setting we are required to construe and interpret the language of the offer.
The North Dakota Legislature has enacted statutes designed to help in the interpretation of contracts and obligations.
Section 9--07--09, NDCC, states:
'The word of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense rather than according to their strict legal meaning, unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed.'
The record before us does not disclose that any of the phrases or words used in the offer have a special meaning because of usage. If there is a special meaning to be ascribed to a phrase or word, it has not been brought to our attention.
If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Washington
...promises to pay rewards or award prizes if any person successfully performs a certain act. See, e.g., Grove v. Charbonneau Buick–Pontiac, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 853, 855 (N.D.1976) (auto dealer promised a new car to first entrant to shoot hole-in-one at a golf tournament). None of the cases cited......
-
Noble County v. Rogers
...may be made wholly or partly by written or spoken words or by other acts or by failure to act."); see also Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 853, 856-57 (N.D.1976) (published rules of contest are a valid offer that, if acted upon, create a binding contract); Lucas v. Godf......
-
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
...77 Nev. 25, 359 P.2d 85 (1961) (awarding $5,000 to plaintiff, who successfully shot a hole-in-one); see also Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 1976) (awarding automobile to plaintiff, who successfully shot a Other "reward" cases underscore the distinction betwee......
-
Bohn v. Johnson
...is ambiguous is also a question of law for the court to decide. Schulz v. Hauck, 312 N.W.2d 360 (N.D.1981); Grove v. Charbonneau Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 853 (N.D.1976). Pursuant to Section 9-07-04, N.D.C.C., the intention of the parties under a written contract is to be ascertained ......