Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

[fistofrage]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

Well, you are assuming that the lady is also telling the entire truth. I have deep suspicions she did not contact Notre Dame. But we'll have to see if she has record. Notre Dame tried to contact her once they found the error and she would not communicate with them. Why would she not talk to them at that point? Notre Dame then had to try to settle this through the courts. Any company would try to resolve this.

And you don't think she received unjust enrichment:

Unjust enrichment means when a person unfairly gets a benefit by chance, mistake or another's misfortune for which the one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must legally return the unfairly kept money or benefits. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine applied in the absence of a contract and used to prevent one person from being unjustly enriched at another's expense.

It was a mistake, Notre Dame can prove it was a mistake. She acted wreckless is cashing the check and quickly spending the money so it could not be repaid.

We'll see how this turns out, but honestly I would have to question your ethics as a lawyer if you honestly believe this person has done no wrong and acted appropriately.

[MassNole]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

You would question my ethics for zealous representation of a client and putting forth an argument backed up by the law that she was entitled to the money? What would you rather see myself or any other lawyer do, sacrifice her to Jabba the Hut....err I mean Charlie Weis for her deplorable sin against the almighty Notre Dame?

[FuzzySlippers]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

All the money Notre Dame generates and they're squabbling over this? You made the mistake,just eat it and move on. It's not like they're gonna miss it.

[fistofrage]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

You would question my ethics for zealous representation of a client and putting forth an argument backed up by the law that she was entitled to the money? What would you rather see myself or any other lawyer do, sacrifice her to Jabba the Hut....err I mean Charlie Weis for her deplorable sin against the almighty Notre Dame?

Her lawyer should defend her where applicable. However, as I stated this is unjust enrichment and she's not entitled to it. The main reason you feel she's entitled is because its Notre Dame. You have some bias against them.

If this was some small store owner who made this error and consequently went bankrupt because it now couldn't make payroll would you still feel this lady was justified in keeping the money and spending it swiftly?

And yes, if you believe that this person acted justly and you would advise clients who receive money in error to act the same way, then yes I totally question your ethics. Ambulance chaser comes to mind.

[MassNole]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

Her lawyer should defend her where applicable. However, as I stated this is unjust enrichment and she's not entitled to it. The main reason you feel she's entitled is because its Notre Dame. You have some bias against them.

Unjust enrichment is not applicable under UCC Article 3. It could come into play under some of the clauses citing to a jurisdiction's contract laws, but under UCC Article 3 the arguments are there to justify her keeping the money.

If this was some small store owner who made this error and consequently went bankrupt because it now couldn't make payroll would you still feel this lady was justified in keeping the money and spending it swiftly?

Did you miss the part about ordinary care under UCC Article 3? The standard that would be applied to a small store is going to be considerably different than that applied to a large university. I thought that was fairly well spelled out under the part of the code I posted. As such that would be a completely different case than the one we were discussing as according to the law the rules would be different. Now if you want to try and convince me small business owners in Indiana by and large have the same procedures in place that Notre Dame, Purdue, or Indiana do then we could discuss that point further, but we both that is not going to be the case.

And yes, if you believe that this person acted justly and you would advise clients who receive money in error to act the same way, then yes I totally question your ethics. Ambulance chaser comes to mind.

Now you are completely misrepresenting what I have said, almost to a slanderous level. At no point did I have ever say I would advise a client to spend that money as soon as possible so nothing could be recovered. In fact I would advise a client to place the money in either a high yield escrow account or something similar that the money could easily be removed from with no penalty. However by the time this case reached my attention she had spent through all, or nearly all of the money, meaning I need to go into the mode of how to protect her interest in this case, which would be legally justify how she is entitled to keep the money.

Now I could go on in length about why on another level Notre Dame's actions in this case irks me so much, but that path would lead to a TOS violation as it goes after the theology Notre Dame follows, or at least says it follows in its own mission statement.

The school also gets more criticism here given it's tuition is over $50,000! I view schools like this as some of the biggest crooks in our country given their unjust tax exempt status. The school generates millions of dollars yet does not pay anything in taxes. So yeah when something like this happens I feel Notre Dame got what it deserved, especially considering the tip in question was far below the average rate of what she should have expected.

[fistofrage]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

Unjust enrichment is not applicable under UCC Article 3. It could come into play under some of the clauses citing to a jurisdiction's contract laws, but under UCC Article 3 the arguments are there to justify her keeping the money.



Did you miss the part about ordinary care under UCC Article 3? The standard that would be applied to a small store is going to be considerably different than that applied to a large university. I thought that was fairly well spelled out under the part of the code I posted. As such that would be a completely different case than the one we were discussing as according to the law the rules would be different. Now if you want to try and convince me small business owners in Indiana by and large have the same procedures in place that Notre Dame, Purdue, or Indiana do then we could discuss that point further, but we both that is not going to be the case.



Now you are completely misrepresenting what I have said, almost to a slanderous level. At no point did I have ever say I would advise a client to spend that money as soon as possible so nothing could be recovered. In fact I would advise a client to place the money in either a high yield escrow account or something similar that the money could easily be removed from with no penalty. However by the time this case reached my attention she had spent through all, or nearly all of the money, meaning I need to go into the mode of how to protect her interest in this case, which would be legally justify how she is entitled to keep the money.

Now I could go on in length about why on another level Notre Dame's actions in this case irks me so much, but that path would lead to a TOS violation as it goes after the theology Notre Dame follows, or at least says it follows in its own mission statement.

Notre Dame's mission statement?! Here we have an entity that mistakingly gave someone too much money and an individual that went out and wrecklessly spent it.

Throw Notre Dame out of the equation. You have a bias against Notre Dame and probably some Robin Hood rob from the rich and give to the poor sense of entitlement.

See what happens when a bank makes an error, they have stricter guidelines in place than your average entity. They recover their money. And all businesses, large and small that I have audited have clearly written procedures for processing invoices and issuing checks. And they are all almost the same, verbatim. Usually a double review of some sort and the check issuer cannot be the same person as the invoice processor. And the check signer is independent of both. That being the case, you are implying that mistakes are a boon or a bonus to the recipient if the entities have policies and procedures in place?

[MassNole]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I provided analysis under the law as to why she should be able to keep the money. If I were to have a bias towards Notre Dame I would be blindly supporting them, much like you are. I will however admit that I have a prejudice against Notre Dame and other faux not-for-profit institutions due to their greed and exploitation of loopholes to defraud the government of millions, if not billions of dollars in tax revenue. But as I said I will not go any further down that road as much as you may try to to bait me to do so.

Earlier in this thread I very specifically stated that when dealing with a bank and a similar error it would be completely different given the contractual relationship between the parties. Here however the issue is Notre Dame claiming to have mistakenly issued too much of a gratuity onto her bill. Legally speaking one could find countless cases in which a person was given an extremely large tip by a generous person.

You are the one here automatically assuming she is lying and made no attempt to confirm that this was not a mistake. But hell for all I know she had a sexual relationship with the authorizing party of the check and this was a way for him to slip his mistress some cash and got caught and is now engaged in some CYA.

[fistofrage]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I provided analysis under the law as to why she should be able to keep the money. If I were to have a bias towards Notre Dame I would be blindly supporting them, much like you are. I will however admit that I have a prejudice against Notre Dame and other faux not-for-profit institutions due to their greed and exploitation of loopholes to defraud the government of millions, if not billions of dollars in tax revenue. But as I said I will not go any further down that road as much as you may try to to bait me to do so.

Earlier in this thread I very specifically stated that when dealing with a bank and a similar error it would be completely different given the contractual relationship between the parties. Here however the issue is Notre Dame claiming to have mistakenly issued too much of a gratuity onto her bill. Legally speaking one could find countless cases in which a person was given an extremely large tip by a generous person.

You are the one here automatically assuming she is lying and made no attempt to confirm that this was not a mistake. But hell for all I know she had a sexual relationship with the authorizing party of the check and this was a way for him to slip his mistress some cash and got caught and is now engaged in some CYA.

I never said you had bias towards, I said bias against. And anyway if you are so concerned about the government being defrauded out of tax dollars, maybe you should tell this lady in the event she gets to keep this money, she's liable for the taxes on them. Most likely around $5,000. Or does she get to not pay that too?

This isn't about Notre Dame, I'll say that again, its about an entity making a mistake and an indiviual taking advantage of that mistake and acting wrecklessly.

Good luck with your law career, there should be plenty of cases to take for people with a sense of entitlement thinking they've been wronged.

[stewaat]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I once had a paycheck that was 10x what it should be. They added a 0 where my hours were. I told them about it and got it fixed.

It's obvious it was a mistake and she knows it. Whether or not she can lie her way out of it is to be seen.

[Vast]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I never said you had bias towards, I said bias against. And anyway if you are so concerned about the government being defrauded out of tax dollars, maybe you should tell this lady in the event she gets to keep this money, she's liable for the taxes on them. Most likely around $5,000. Or does she get to not pay that too?

This isn't about Notre Dame, I'll say that again, its about an entity making a mistake and an indiviual taking advantage of that mistake and acting wrecklessly.

Good luck with your law career, there should be plenty of cases to take for people with a sense of entitlement thinking they've been wronged.

I think its unfair to go at MassNole just because you believe Notre Dame should be held up to the same standards as a mom and pop shop. ND is ultra rich and pays no taxes. They can afford to slip up and lose 30k. The lady acted irresponsibly, but most poor people when large amounts of money land on their lap usually do.
The fact is if a lawyer can help her keep the money, then that Lawyer is doing a good deed. If that money goes back to ND, where would it go? i can guarantee its not going to charity. Unless you call it going back into a rich man/****** pocket charity.

Comparing this to a slip up on your paycheck isn't valid IMO. If i mistakenly give someone a 100 bill for a tip instead of a 10. then realize a month later and try to get it back from them...... ha.

[fistofrage]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I think its unfair to go at MassNole just because you believe Notre Dame should be held up to the same standards as a mom and pop shop. ND is ultra rich and pays no taxes. They can afford to slip up and lose 30k. The lady acted irresponsibly, but most poor people when large amounts of money land on their lap usually do.
The fact is if a lawyer can help her keep the money, then that Lawyer is doing a good deed. If that money goes back to ND, where would it go? i can guarantee its not going to charity. Unless you call it going back into a rich man/****** pocket charity.

Comparing this to a slip up on your paycheck isn't valid IMO. If i mistakenly give someone a 100 bill for a tip instead of a 10. then realize a month later and try to get it back from them...... ha.

The sense of entitlement on this board simply amazes me. Its not her money and its not about Notre Dame. Its about an entity making a mistake and a person thinking that getting money for nothing is justified and capitalizing on a mistake and then spending the money wrecklessly.

I'm done with this thread. I know if OS was a friend's house, I'd be very afraid if I accidentally left my wallet behind.

[Vast]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

The sense of entitlement on this board simply amazes me. Its not her money and its not about Notre Dame. Its about an entity making a mistake and a person thinking that getting money for nothing is justified and capitalizing on a mistake and then spending the money wrecklessly.

I'm done with this thread. I know if OS was a friend's house, I'd be very afraid if I accidentally left my wallet behind.

It wasn't her money until ND gave it to her, then it became hers. Some mistakes are costly as this one IMO should be.

Insinuating that we are thieves because we dont agree with you is laughable. The money was given to her, she didnt take it.

[DickDalewood]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

^ exactly stew. The check should have been returned. I'm scared the think about the ethics some of you may or may not be teaching to your kids...

[Misfit]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I used to work with wire transfers on a daily basis for a custodial bank. In these instances $29k would be peanuts, but still would have to pass through at least 4 sets of hands in order to be sent out (the client who requested the transfer, myself, a reviewer, and an executor). Nevermind that once it was past that stage it went onto a separate department for approval (in these cases, to make sure the client had the cash on hand to do it or if the bank would be assuming some risk).

At any rate, I would assume that Notre Dame has some system in place that should prevent this from happening. Now, ignoring that 29k is also peanuts to ND, someone still has to draft the check and sign it. Someone must be entering this information into an electronic database as well and several people in their accounting department are going to see this before the check even reaches this woman's hands. For this to slip by and not be caught within at least a day or so is pretty pathetic on the part of ND and fireable offense (unfortunately, it would likely be a low level manager that would get the ax and not the guy who put his name on the check).

Now if this woman is telling the truth that she attempted to contact ND multiple times to verify the check's amount then I don't see where ND has much of a case. As MasNole pointed out, the check in this case be viewed as a written contract between the two entities. In the case of a bank error, it's usually an electronic error where no such contract exists, so that comparison should be thrown out the window. A "Mom and Pop" store likely won't have many hurdles to jump through in order to find out if a check was in error or not, an individual issued a check from such an establishment would just make one phone call during business hours and get the bad news. The small business would also likely notice it immediately if such a check were cashed and it's possible it would bounce anyways.

The only case I see for ND is on an ethical ground. The woman likely knew the check was in error. If her supervisors told her to cash it, I would think ND should be going after her company or they at least should be expected to assume some responsibility. If no one from the school told her the check was good, they just didn't return her phone calls, then she might have a problem. If someone from the school told her the check was good, then ND is out of 29k. As MassNole pointed out, the woman's best defense would be to cite examples of generous tips reported in the media as a reason for why she felt the check was genuine.

My own personal opinion is that ND should just eat the sunk cost. ND had to do a lot wrong for a check of that size to ever reach this individual and is likely just directing its anger elsewhere. ND should end its relationship with this caterer and move on. I do not fault ND for trying to get the money back, but to sue seems like a waste of time and money, and ND has already blown 29k to begin with. I don't wish to judge the woman who received the check. She could be a really kind person who thought she was just handed a huge gift, she could also be a devious individual who immediately cashed and spent the money in an attempt to prevent ND from ever seeing it again. If that's the case then she'll likely get what she deserves. I imagine ND is a pretty big client for her company and they likely wouldn't be happy with her over losing it.

[MassNole]

Re: Notre Dame Suing Caterer After Mistakenly Giving $29k Tip

I never said you had bias towards, I said bias against. And anyway if you are so concerned about the government being defrauded out of tax dollars, maybe you should tell this lady in the event she gets to keep this money, she's liable for the taxes on them. Most likely around $5,000. Or does she get to not pay that too?

Of course she has to pay the taxes on it. At what point did I or anyone else even remotely suggest that wouldn't be the case?

This isn't about Notre Dame, I'll say that again, its about an entity making a mistake and an indiviual taking advantage of that mistake and acting wrecklessly.

Good luck with your law career, there should be plenty of cases to take for people with a sense of entitlement thinking they've been wronged.

I cited to the controlling law on this subject, which clearly goes against Notre Dame's case. The only one who seems to be acting with a sense of entitlement is Notre Dame as they are taking the stance the law that controls these actions should not apply to them.

I think my career will be find so long as I am able to take facts presented to me and finding a way to find law or interpret law that strengthens the case of my client. If I could I would tell you about a civil case I am working on right now in which a client was severely wronged and the law provides her a remedy.

I once had a paycheck that was 10x what it should be. They added a 0 where my hours were. I told them about it and got it fixed.

It's obvious it was a mistake and she knows it. Whether or not she can lie her way out of it is to be seen.

There is a big difference between a set paycheck and a check with a gratuity on it. One had set hours with a set amount of pay, the other was left to the discretion of another party to tip as they saw fit.

Perhaps she was told by someone at the event that she had done an outstanding job and would be rewarded accordingly.

The sense of entitlement on this board simply amazes me. Its not her money and its not about Notre Dame. Its about an entity making a mistake and a person thinking that getting money for nothing is justified and capitalizing on a mistake and then spending the money wrecklessly.

I'm done with this thread. I know if OS was a friend's house, I'd be very afraid if I accidentally left my wallet behind.

There is a big difference between a sense of entitlement and believing the law should be enforced. Here I have shown you the controlling law on the subject. The UCC is adopted by 49 states, and Indiana isn't the exception (Louisiana and its Napoleonic Code is), so this is the law that controls the matter. Here Notre Dame is seeking for that law to not be applied to them, so again who is the one acting with the sense of entitlement? To me it clearly seems to be the one seeking to get around the law, which would be Notre Dame.

^ exactly stew. The check should have been returned. I'm scared the think about the ethics some of you may or may not be teaching to your kids...

You mean the ethics like how the law should enforced and applied to all? I am more scared if this is the opposite of the ethics some of you are teaching your children. Notre Dame made a mistake, however the law states what happens under these circumstances. Now it is possible Notre Dame wins in Court, they'll likely have far better legal representation than she could possibly afford. But under a reading of the UCC Article 3, this type of action is accounted for and it goes against Notre Dame. It also states that the person liable for the mistake is the person who cut the check, not the acceptor of the check. Yet again it seems the sense of entitlement here is to not hold that person responsible despite the law saying he or she should be, but holding the innocent party responsible.

I also find it funny that Notre Dame will spend far more than $29,000 in legal costs to pursue this matter not to mention the severe public relations hit they will take over this.