Brief Iacono v. Lyons

Brief Iacono v. Lyons - and said This ones for you, Puddin....

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 10/15/09 Seat #59 IANONO v. LYONS Facts: The plaintiff, Iacono, was lifelong friends with the defendant, Lyons. Lyons invited Iacono to an expense free trip to Las Vegas with her. Iacono claimed that she was invited because she had a dream where she won at a Vegas slot machine. Lyons agreed to pay all of Iacono’s expenses, and Iacono agreed Lyons’ offer to split any winnings 50-50. On night, while in Vegas, the pair was playing slot machines when Lyons wanted to leave to see a show. Iacono “begged” Lyons to stay, and Lyons agreed on the condition that she could put in Iacono’s quarters (to speed things up). Iacono agreed and they went to slot machine and lost on the first round; however, the second try yielded a result of $1,908,064. Before they played the winning round, Iacono said “Just one more time,” and Lyons looked at Iacono
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: and said This ones for you, Puddin. After winning, Lyons did not share any of the winnings with Iacono, and denies ever saying she would. Iacono sued Lyons for breach of contract. History: The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, Lyons. Issue: Is this potential agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds under the One-Year Provision? Decision: No. The trial courts decision was reversed and remanded. Reasons: The winnings were going to be paid over a period of 20 years; however, it is probable for the winnings to be paid over a period of one year. For example, if the Iacono and Lyons were to win $200, chances are they could have split the winnings immediately. As a result, the statue of frauds is not applicable to this situation....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online