You’re forgetting that the lottery made an official pronouncement through official channels. I believe that you’re entering promissory estoppel here–dude could have spent some money or taken a loan, confident in that money coming. Make no mistake: the lottery wronged and harmed him through their own negligence.
The defendant made a clear and unambiguous promise.
The plaintiff acted in reliance on the defendant’s promise.
The plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable and foreseeable.
The plaintiff suffered an injury due to reliance on the defendant’s promise.
Assuming purchasing a winning Powerball ticket meets the definition of a “promise,” I’d say the guy has a reasonable argument for points 2-4 but that Powerball also has an argument for (1): that with the winning numbers not being consistently reported, the “promise” was not unambiguous.
You’re forgetting that the lottery made an official pronouncement through official channels. I believe that you’re entering promissory estoppel here–dude could have spent some money or taken a loan, confident in that money coming. Make no mistake: the lottery wronged and harmed him through their own negligence.
Promissory estoppel has four requirements:
Assuming purchasing a winning Powerball ticket meets the definition of a “promise,” I’d say the guy has a reasonable argument for points 2-4 but that Powerball also has an argument for (1): that with the winning numbers not being consistently reported, the “promise” was not unambiguous.
Thanks for that explanation. I agree with your take that reporting is not the same as promising here.