National Amateur Bowlers, Inc. v. Tassos, Civ. A. No. 88-2370-O.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-2370-O.
• Citation: 715 F. Supp. 323
• Parties: NATIONAL AMATEUR BOWLERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Randolf TASSOS and Sylvester G. Massa, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

715 F. Supp. 323

NATIONAL AMATEUR BOWLERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Randolf TASSOS and Sylvester G. Massa, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 88-2370-O.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

June 27, 1989.

Merrill R. Talpers and Charles L. House, Kansas City, Mo., and Stephen M. Fletcher, Overland Park, Kan., for plaintiff.

Steven E. Rogers, Dallas, Tex., and Frank W. Lipsman, Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts, Overland Park, Kan., for Randolf Tassos.

Charles R. Wilson, Overland Park, Kan., for Sylvester G. Massa.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EARL E. O'CONNOR, Chief Judge.

This interpleader action was tried to the court on Thursday, June 1, 1989. After reviewing the parties' arguments, briefs and exhibits, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff National Amateur Bowlers, Inc. ("NABI") is an amateur bowling association. Defendants Randolf Tassos ("Tassos") and Sylvester Massa ("Massa") are members of NABI. In June 1988, defendants Tassos and Massa competed in NABI's national championship tournament, held in Las Vegas, Nevada. Both defendants participated in the showcase event, the IROC-Z Bonanza tournament. The grand prize to be awarded the winner of this tournament was a 1988 Chevrolet Camaro, IROC-Z28, VIN No. 1G1FP21FOJL115601.

Defendants competed against one another in the final game of the tournament. Tassos beat Massa, and Tassos was declared the winner of first prize and Massa was declared the winner of second prize. Subsequently, the executive tournament director and president of NABI, John McCoy, disqualified defendant Tassos for failing to fully disclose his bowling history. With the first prize winner being disqualified, the second prize winner, Massa, became entitled to the grand prize.

To enter the national championship tournament, all participants were required to fill out a NABI Publicity Release Form. Defendant Tassos submitted a NABI Publicity Release Form, and in so doing agreed to abide by the NABI Tournament rules and all decisions of the Executive Tournament Director. NABI tournament rule number twelve required all participants to have a NABI Publicity Release Form on file with a complete bowling history. Defendant Tassos concedes that his publicity release form did not contain his complete bowling history. Specifically, defendant Tassos failed to disclose prior tournament prize winnings. A bowler's prior winnings are relative to determining his ability and his handicap.

Despite being informed of his disqualification, defendant Tassos claimed entitlement to the grand prize. Being informed of Tassos' disqualification, defendant Massa claimed entitlement to the grand prize. Faced with the possibility of double liability, NABI filed this interpleader action for the purpose of determining who was entitled to claim the automobile, defendant Tassos or defendant Massa.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The offer of a prize for the performance of a specified act in a contest, such as the NABI national championship tournament in Las Vegas, constitutes the first part of the normal offer-acceptance-consideration equation for the formation of an enforceable contract. By competing in the contest, a competitor accepts the offer; by performing the specified act required for winning the contest, he provides the necessary consideration. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc. v. Gibson, 77 Nev. 25, 359 P.2d 85, 86 (1961). The rights of a contestant who has performed the act required in the promoter's offer are limited, however, by the terms of the offer, i.e., by the conditions and rules of the contest. Bowlerama of Texas, Inc. v. Miyakawa, 449 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Civ.App.1970).

The conditions and rules of the Las Vegas contest to which defendant Tassos agreed, among other things, provided that he would disclose his complete bowling history and that he would abide by all the decisions of the executive tournament director, John McCoy. Defendant Tassos concedes that he did not disclose his complete bowling history, and thus concedes that he did not comply with the terms of the offer. This noncompliance precludes his being eligible for the contest's prize.

Furthermore, it has been long settled that when a contestant agrees to be bound by the decisions of a tournament director or an awards committee, such decisions are final and binding on contestants absent fraud, gross mistake, or lack of good faith. Younker v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 137 F.Supp. 407, 408 (E.D.N.Y.1954), aff'd, 228 F.2d 958 (2d Cir.1955); Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 116 F.Supp. 375, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1952), aff'd, 207 F.2d 957 (2d Cir.1953); Baez v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 13 F.R.D. 330, 331 (S.D. N.Y.1952); Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Little Rock, d/b/a/ Arkansas Beverage Co. v. Castleberry, 1984 WL 1754 (Ark.App. Mar. 28, 1984); Davidson v. Times Printing Co., 63 Wash. 577, 116 P. 18 (1911). Defendant Tassos offers no evidence which would tend to indicate that John McCoy disqualified him from the...