An artist’s promises on Twitter to pay $1mm for returning his missing laptop. A stranger returns the laptop. Does the artist have to pay the stranger $1mm? In Pennsylvania, probably yes.
Artist Ryan Leslie lost his laptop while on tour in Germany. This is the tweet : “I’m absolutely continuing my Euro tour plus raised the reward for my intellectual property to $1mm. Click to watch: http://on.fb.me/bCBnrM””. Does this 160-character statement make a contract? Would a reasonable person read this tweet, and believe all she has to do is find the laptop and she will become a millionaire? Well, Armin Augstein has filed a lawsuit in New York claiming that Leslie’s tweet is a binding contract.
While New York law will determine the lawsuit’s outcome, let’s imagine what would happen if Augstein sued Leslie in Pennsylvania. The contract in dispute is called a unilateral contract; it means that Leslie made a promise and all that is requried to convert this promise into a contract is that the other party must merely act—or in this case—find the laptop. Ordinarily, a contract requries two parties to commuincate with each other. (this is called a bilateral contract). If this situation were a bilateral contract, Leslie would make an offer by tweet; someone would accept his offer by tweet, and a contract is born.
However, a unilateral contract is different. The person accepting the offer does not have to communicate his/her acceptance. The person accepts the contract by acting.1 The law will examine the tweet for “some language of commitment or some invitation to take further action without further communication.”2 The threshold question is: would a reasonable person read the tweet and understand that she would receive one million dollars if, without further communication with Leslie, she found the laptop. Without this language, the law may find this tweet was merely an advertisement or invitation to begin negotiations. So, in short, if Leslie were sued in Pennsylvania, he may lose a million dollars. My best advice to Leslie: settle early before your legal bill also reaches a million dollars.
There, of course, is a separate issue of whether Leslie is morally or ethically responsible for paying the promised million. I believe the answer is yes. I think Leslie is a sophisticated public figure, and New York Law School agrees with me. He understands the power of Twitter and the media. He is a Harvard-graduate at the age of 19 and a Grammy-award nominee. He should have known better. Thus, the court should hold him accountable for the promises he makes in public.
Sharmil McKee
sm@mckeeoffice.com
Business Attorney
Philadelphia, PA
———–
1. Bauer v. Pottsville Area Emergency Med. Serv., Inc., 758 A. 2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2000).
2. Bourke v. Kazaras, 746 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Super. 2000).
