Should Ed get some of the winnings

[Salty]

THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE LOTTERY BEING RIGHT OR WRONG. PLEASE DO NOT DICUSS THAT PART OF THE ISSUE. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO - START A NEW THREAD!!

Ed participted in an office pool for 8 years. He was out on medical leave and was not participating. During that time, the pool won 99 million dollars. Should Ed get a share of the pool?

The article did not state how many participated each week, but lets assume that there were 10 members. Without Ed, the nine would end up each recieving 11 million dollars each. For an equal share, ten would each recive 9.9 million.

How about the pool giving Ed, say 3 million, than the nine would each recieve 9.6 million dollars.

If you were Judge Wapner - what would be your decision - and the reasoning you base it on?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Is Ed a member of my church? Then yes.

If not- that sinner should repent of his greed!

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[freeatlast]

THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE LOTTERY BEING RIGHT OR WRONG. PLEASE DO NOT DICUSS THAT PART OF THE ISSUE. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO - START A NEW THREAD!!

Ed participted in an office pool for 8 years. He was out on medical leave and was not participating. During that time, the pool won 99 million dollars. Should Ed get a share of the pool?

The article did not state how many participated each week, but lets assume that there were 10 members. Without Ed, the nine would end up each recieving 11 million dollars each. For an equal share, ten would each recive 9.9 million.

How about the pool giving Ed, say 3 million, than the nine would each recieve 9.6 million dollars.

If you were Judge Wapner - what would be your decision - and the reasoning you base it on?

edited double post

 

[freeatlast]

THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE LOTTERY BEING RIGHT OR WRONG. PLEASE DO NOT DICUSS THAT PART OF THE ISSUE. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO - START A NEW THREAD!!

Ed participted in an office pool for 8 years. He was out on medical leave and was not participating. During that time, the pool won 99 million dollars. Should Ed get a share of the pool?

The article did not state how many participated each week, but lets assume that there were 10 members. Without Ed, the nine would end up each recieving 11 million dollars each. For an equal share, ten would each recive 9.9 million.

How about the pool giving Ed, say 3 million, than the nine would each recieve 9.6 million dollars.

If you were Judge Wapner - what would be your decision - and the reasoning you base it on?

If it can be proven that in the past they covered those who were absent for long periods of time, in this case months, as this man was absent then yes. If not then no he is not legally entitled to anything.

 

[billwald]

He could have arranged for someone to put in his ante.

 

[Gina B]

Sad enough, but he didn't put in for it so no, not legally entitled.
However, it would be a nice thing if the coworkers all pitched in and gifted him a portion since it seems obvious that he always played it with them and he wasn't out of his own free will and would have pitched into the game if he was there. They didn't have the money before and it's not like they'd be scraping to survive if they shared some with him.

Side note-when I was eighteen, a friend and I were standing in line for scratch off tickets at a store next to the restaurant where we worked. I was head waitress and had to be there fifteen minutes before the other ones and left the line...before doing so, I told my friend which one I had planned to buy and said "I think it's a winner!" SHE bought it and won $500. I was soooo stinkin' jealous.
But I didn't sue her. LOL I did suggest she share some with me :saint: and she said she would since I suggested the ticket but she didn't. Such is life.

Just because something FEELS unfair doesn't mean it is. Stinky maybe, but not unfair.

 

[Arbo]

He...was not participating. During that time, the pool won 99 millon dollars.

To quote Nelson from the Simpsons, "HA, HA!"