They hit the jackpot, winning $1,908,064 to be paid over a period of twenty years. Carolyn refused to share the winnings with Mary. Is Mary entitled to one-half of the proceeds? Explain.
Mary Iacono and Carolyn Lyons had been friends for almost thirty-five years. Mary suffers from advanced rheumatoid arthritis and is in a wheelchair. Carolyn invited Mary to join her on a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, for which Carolyn paid. Mary contended she was invited to Las Vegas by Carolyn because Carolyn thought Mary was lucky. Sometime before the trip, Mary had a dream about winning on a Las Vegas slot machine. Mary’s dream convinced her to go to Las Vegas, and she accepted Carolyn’s offer to split “50-50” any gambling winnings. Carolyn provided Mary with money for gambling. Mary and Carolyn started to gamble, but after losing $47, Carolyn wanted to leave to see a show. Mary begged Carolyn to stay, and Carolyn agreed on the condition that Carolyn put the coins into the machines because doing so took Mary too long. Mary agreed and led Carolyn to a dollar slot machine that looked like the machine in her dream. The machine did not pay on the first try. Mary then said, “Just one more time,” and Carolyn looked at Mary and said, “This one’s for you, Puddin.” They hit the jackpot, winning $1,908,064 to be paid over a period of twenty years. Carolyn refused to share the winnings with Mary. Is Mary entitled to one-half of the proceeds? Explain.
Some kind of measure may be used to determine the parties' aim at the time of the undertaking. The fact that the complete achievement in one year is not required or assumed may not bring the contract under the law. Assuming that without any decision, the parties agreed to divide their gambling wins, such an agreement might be executed within one year. Consequently, the agreement may not be categorized under the statute of frauds and Person M deserves one-half of earnings.
Person M may be entitled to one-half of the earnings. Person C, the appellant, has asserted that the contract and was unlawful under the statute of frauds as it could not be executed within one year. There may not be any argument that the proceeds were to be paid in time of 20 years.
To understand the validity of the statute of frauds with indefinite contracts, the court may use any reasonable measure for establishing the planned scope of accomplishment.