At the end of the day.. the fact is that the production company has f***ed up most of this series. I don't exspect the same producers back next year... if there even is a next year for BB
No contract exists between the general viewing public and C5. C5/Endemol would have contracts with each of the HMs which would be general enough to allow them to alter the prize fund any way they chose (within reason). HMs get paid a nominal fee for their time on the show don't they?
No, he tried that one first but my sister in law quoted some code of practise and he had to sell them?
No I promise you they can decide to remove it from sale. They don't HAVE to sell it. The purchaser power only happens once the transaction is complete and they take the manager to the shelf and ask for the refund of the difference. It is on the shelf "offer to sell" but not complete until the money has exchanged x
so, they've been pulling this surprise for a while now, since Eugene in 2005,
The producers didn't pick Eugene to get the prize. All HM's had the chance to win it..........It's the fact the producers decided who this prize would be offered to......They have heard the same conversations as us so know Conor and Luke S will just decide to share, the fight is who will go who will stay.
This is the most unfair twist I have seen in BB: I'm not sure they aren't breaking some TV gaming law, by not allowing all remaining HM's the chance to win the 50 grand.
No I promise you they can decide to remove it from sale. They don't HAVE to sell it. The purchaser power only happens once the transaction is complete and they take the manager to the shelf and ask for the refund of the difference. It is on the shelf "offer to sell" but not complete until the money has exchanged x
Thanks, I'm not sure exactly what happened, all I know is there was one heck of a stink kicked up about it, he tried saying not for sale, she quoted something and asked to speak to someone higher? I think he thought that he would be in bigger trouble then because he had labelled them up wrong? She got them at £20 anyway x
Thanks, I'm not sure exactly what happened, all I know is there was one heck of a stink kicked up about it, he tried saying not for sale, she quoted something and asked to speak to someone higher? I think he thought that he would be in bigger trouble then because he had labelled them up wrong? Sh got them at £20 anyway x
Oh yes... I am just like your sister Unfortunately I discovered the legal position after being refused a kettle (of all things)! They prefer not to have the stink and decide to let it go. I an quite "firm" and have had a few "bargains" tee hee hee x
The producers didn't pick Eugene to get the prize. All HM's had the chance to win it..........It's the fact the producers decided who this prize would be offered to......They have heard the same conversations as us so know Conor and Luke S will just decide to share, the fight is who will go who will stay.
This is the most unfair twist I have seen in BB: I'm not sure they aren't breaking some TV gaming law, by not allowing all remaining HM's the chance to win the 50 grand.
Totally, I can't help but feel that a certain person was a bit too keen as well, getting all aggressive to say they had to stay 'for the public', had he been tipped off. What got me was the way they left out the little detail about the cash until they got rid of Sara, why wait, why didn't they tell her.
That's not true. Verbal agreements can be binding too when one party has given something of theirs in consideration of the agreement - in this instance, that would be the viewer's telephone votes. Viewer's weren't informed of this upcoming twist, and many I'm sure would have changed their votes to ensure a Conor eviction sooner.
I personally feel a bit scammed.
As I said, very few verbal contracts are legally binding,
some of them can be but this is not the case for the vast majority of them. Use this as an example, a friend lends another friend £1000 an says he will pay him back in 12 months, 12 months has passed and the friend has not re-paid the £1,000-is this a breach of a legally binding contract? No. There is no signiature on paper to state when the monies will be re-paid.
The viewer has not signed a contract with C5 that says anything along the lines of I will only vote if the housemate I am voting for wins the £100,000. Also, the telephone vote is a vote to save the individually desired housemate from eviction on that night, not to win the show and the £100,000. The viewer has the option not to phone and vote.
I understand that viewers will feel scammed but it is quite laughable to even suggest that Brian Dowling or C5 have entered into a legally binding contract with the viewer.
The only reason a verbal contract is generally not binding is because it is virtually impossible to prove, whereas BD made that verbal statement on recorded media which is provable. The public enter into a contract when they vote on the phone, the purpose of that contract was given by BD, to crown the winner and give them £100K.
Even if they could wriggle out of all votes to save it still wouldn't apply to the final week where people will be voting for the winner.
I just think it begging to be tested in court, and it really needs to happen to protect the public from being conned.
The viewer is phoning each week to save their housemate of choice from eviction, nowhere does it say that you are voting for them to go on and win the show and £100,000. As I've said, the viewer has the option not to vote, however voting does not bring you into any form of legally binding contract with C5. If a member of the public attempted to bring a case like this to court they would be laughed out quicker than they walked in. The only person who has a 'legally binding contract' with C5 is the housemates who will have signed and agreed that Big Brother can change the rules of the competition at any time.
Contract Law is incredibly complex and can be taken to pieces in discussion, but I've been working/studying contract law for almost 5 years now and can guarantee that this is no legally binding contract.
No contract exists between the general viewing public and C5. C5/Endemol would have contracts with each of the HMs which would be general enough to allow them to alter the prize fund any way they chose (within reason). HMs get paid a nominal fee for their time on the show don't they?
They do have contracts with the voting public though, because by voting you enter into a contract & the basis of that contract is what was stated at the start of the show, '£100,000 for your winner', that's how I see it.
No doubt the contracts with housemates are vague about prizes, but Dowling wasn't vague, he made a fixed statement that voters accept when they vote.
As I say every year - they can indeed change the rules within the game but not change the rules if it breaks the law. the OP is questioning whether in fact there is a legal issue here. (the reason they fell foul of the law when they put nikki back in was due to a breach of contract).
Brian made a statement, people have voted and spent money on the basis of that statement (it could be argued) and as such is there a breach of contract here in that whoever win will not walk away with 100k?
Its an interesting question and one which I think has some merit.
They do have contracts with the voting public though, because by voting you enter into a contract & the basis of that contract is what was stated at the start of the show, '£100,000 for your winner', that's how I see it.
No doubt the contracts with housemates are vague about prizes, but Dowling wasn't vague, he made a fixed statement that voters accept when they vote.
But your 'contract' by voting is that your vote goes towards saving the house mate of your choice and that the housemate with the least amount of votes is evicted. Nothing at all to do with he £100,000 prize money.
If the advertisement for voting said 'Who do you want to win £100,000? To vote for 'insert name here' to win £100,000 dial whatever number' then you would have a point but the vote is just a vote to save your housemate, as C5 state.
The FM's who don't believe there is a contract between ch5 and viewers, you've made your points.
The FM's who do - I am one - make your VALID complaints to Ofcom, as I will. There was a case when Nikki G returned between broadcaster and viewer, and, imho, there's a case now.
Don't be put off by the one or two posters who seem happy with the twist.
The FM's who don't believe there is a contract between ch5 and viewers, you've made your points.
The FM's who do - I am one - make your VALID complaints to Ofcom, as I will. There was a case when Nikki G returned between broadcaster and viewer, and, imho, there's a case now.
Don't be put off by the one or two posters who seem happy with the twist.
Just to clarify, I'm not happy with the twist and neither do I think it's moral. But morality and legality are two completely different subjects.
In the US the producers could not legally offer a "winners" prize to contestants and then change it or give it to a non winner. In the US making deals for prize money is also forbidden (don't nominate me and I'll give you half the money if I win would get you thrown out of BBUS). AKA Bait and Switch and Collusion. Neither appears to be illegal in the Commonwealth. OR at least not illegal in regards to BB.
Thing is it must be in the contracts for BBUK and BBAUS that there is no guaranteed prize "money". Guess that really is the reason that contestants have to want SOMETHING else from going on.. That's why you get the abundance of "wanna bees" with a tenuous grasp on sentence structure and language. That's why the majority of contestants on these competitions seem to come from the very shallowest end of the gene pool. The end that thinks they will start a fabulous career by sitting around a tv set for a few months ...
I remember 1 year they told the contestants in BBAus there was no prize money going in.... it wasn't true but and they still went in....
Legally you might have something in regards to a verbal contract to challenge but the HMs also signed a written legal contract before the Launch which wont be superseded by anything verbal. As it would have to be the winner who challenged BB legally for the other 50k they would not have legal standing to challenge BB.
not necessarily. I think the more pertinent legal question is not whether there has been a breach of contract re the HMs (I am sure they have that covered :rolleyes:) but whether the public has been mislead given we have been playing the game, which has involved spending our money to vote, only to have the rules of that game changed so close to the end. If indeed Brian did tell us at the beginning that the winner would walk away with 100k - and that is not now the case how does that leave our part in the game?
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: "…In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize."
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: …In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize.
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Yes, that is perfect and put very succinctly. Also, I would have changed many of my voting decisions had I known about the twist. May be worth noting, similar has happened before but ALL housemates had an opportunity to win the money.
This is the most obscenely unfair prize money twist they've ever had.
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: …In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize.
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
Thank you in advance for your time.
That's not bad. Hope it works. Sadly I don't know the first thing about UK contract law so wouldn't even know where to start....
You're probably right sadly, it makes me think people would be better saving their voting money & send cash to whatever fav they liked the most, at least that way it wouldn't be harvested by a conniving company & given to someone most people hate.
That would be an intresting scenario, the viewers taking control and boycotting the voting and instead donating to a winners page.
But I'm not sure the trust is there between forum members plus it's fairly complicated legally.
I would love to see so,etching like that happen.
As I said, very
I understand that viewers will feel scammed but it is quite laughable to even suggest that Brian Dowling or C5 have entered into a legally binding contract with the viewer.
The viewer is phoning each week to save their housemate of choice from eviction, nowhere does it say that you are voting for them to go on and win the show and £100,000. As I've said, the viewer has the option not to vote, however voting does not bring you into any form of legally binding contract with C5. If a member of the public attempted to bring a case like this to court they would be laughed out quicker than they walked in. The only person who has a 'legally binding contract' with C5 is the housemates who will have signed and agreed that Big Brother can change the rules of the competition at any time.
Contract Law is incredibly complex and can be taken to pieces in discussion, but I've been working/studying contract law for almost 5 years now and can guarantee that this is no legally binding contract.
BD is not the issue, he could be a mechanical voice, it's the company he works for that is responsible for what he said legally.
Viewers may be voting to save, but the vote also gives their choice the change to win. It would be like placing a bet on a roulette wheel for someone else & leaving that bet running, until the final spin of the wheel it is entirely uncertain that your friend will win anything, but you place the bet in the hope that on the final spin they will be lucky. What BB are doing is saying bet on your fav for their chance to stay in/ win, except they've now taken the money that they said they would pay out and given it to some shady mate of theirs lurking at the side of the table.
People were led to believe that the winner would get £100,000, all they would need to say is that they only voted because that is what they were led to believe would happen in the event their fav won, & now that's not happening.
I know you think that voters don't have a contract, but the person buying the chocolate bar enters into a legally binding contract, his till receipt being his proof. Every phone or facebook vote leave a receipt and involves the formation of a contract.
People would not be laughed out of court, taking money under false pretenses is serious stuff, BB would be hard pressed to claim that they had kept to their original stated offer on votes to save & on final week votes to win it would be C5/Endamol that would laughed out of court.
I would have thought it was the contract with the HMs that counted. If the contract said there would be a monetary prize to the winner, without specifying the amount, then there is no breach of contract.
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: …In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize.
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
The only person who will have any chance of legal action against Big Brother is the winner of BB13. They are the only ones who entered the show on the basis of winning £100k.
Comments
No I promise you they can decide to remove it from sale. They don't HAVE to sell it. The purchaser power only happens once the transaction is complete and they take the manager to the shelf and ask for the refund of the difference. It is on the shelf "offer to sell" but not complete until the money has exchanged x
The producers didn't pick Eugene to get the prize. All HM's had the chance to win it..........It's the fact the producers decided who this prize would be offered to......They have heard the same conversations as us so know Conor and Luke S will just decide to share, the fight is who will go who will stay.
This is the most unfair twist I have seen in BB: I'm not sure they aren't breaking some TV gaming law, by not allowing all remaining HM's the chance to win the 50 grand.
Thanks, I'm not sure exactly what happened, all I know is there was one heck of a stink kicked up about it, he tried saying not for sale, she quoted something and asked to speak to someone higher? I think he thought that he would be in bigger trouble then because he had labelled them up wrong? She got them at £20 anyway
Oh yes... I am just like your sister
As I said, very few verbal contracts are legally binding,
some of them can be but this is not the case for the vast majority of them. Use this as an example, a friend lends another friend £1000 an says he will pay him back in 12 months, 12 months has passed and the friend has not re-paid the £1,000-is this a breach of a legally binding contract? No. There is no signiature on paper to state when the monies will be re-paid.
The viewer has not signed a contract with C5 that says anything along the lines of I will only vote if the housemate I am voting for wins the £100,000. Also, the telephone vote is a vote to save the individually desired housemate from eviction on that night, not to win the show and the £100,000. The viewer has the option not to phone and vote.
I understand that viewers will feel scammed but it is quite laughable to even suggest that Brian Dowling or C5 have entered into a legally binding contract with the viewer.
The viewer is phoning each week to save their housemate of choice from eviction, nowhere does it say that you are voting for them to go on and win the show and £100,000. As I've said, the viewer has the option not to vote, however voting does not bring you into any form of legally binding contract with C5. If a member of the public attempted to bring a case like this to court they would be laughed out quicker than they walked in. The only person who has a 'legally binding contract' with C5 is the housemates who will have signed and agreed that Big Brother can change the rules of the competition at any time.
Contract Law is incredibly complex and can be taken to pieces in discussion, but I've been working/studying contract law for almost 5 years now and can guarantee that this is no legally binding contract.
No doubt the contracts with housemates are vague about prizes, but Dowling wasn't vague, he made a fixed statement that voters accept when they vote.
As I say every year - they can indeed change the rules within the game but not change the rules if it breaks the law. the OP is questioning whether in fact there is a legal issue here. (the reason they fell foul of the law when they put nikki back in was due to a breach of contract).
Brian made a statement, people have voted and spent money on the basis of that statement (it could be argued) and as such is there a breach of contract here in that whoever win will not walk away with 100k?
Its an interesting question and one which I think has some merit.
But your 'contract' by voting is that your vote goes towards saving the house mate of your choice and that the housemate with the least amount of votes is evicted. Nothing at all to do with he £100,000 prize money.
If the advertisement for voting said 'Who do you want to win £100,000? To vote for 'insert name here' to win £100,000 dial whatever number' then you would have a point but the vote is just a vote to save your housemate, as C5 state.
The FM's who don't believe there is a contract between ch5 and viewers, you've made your points.
The FM's who do - I am one - make your VALID complaints to Ofcom, as I will. There was a case when Nikki G returned between broadcaster and viewer, and, imho, there's a case now.
Don't be put off by the one or two posters who seem happy with the twist.
Just to clarify, I'm not happy with the twist and neither do I think it's moral. But morality and legality are two completely different subjects.
Thing is it must be in the contracts for BBUK and BBAUS that there is no guaranteed prize "money". Guess that really is the reason that contestants have to want SOMETHING else from going on.. That's why you get the abundance of "wanna bees" with a tenuous grasp on sentence structure and language. That's why the majority of contestants on these competitions seem to come from the very shallowest end of the gene pool. The end that thinks they will start a fabulous career by sitting around a tv set for a few months ...
I remember 1 year they told the contestants in BBAus there was no prize money going in.... it wasn't true but
not necessarily. I think the more pertinent legal question is not whether there has been a breach of contract re the HMs (I am sure they have that covered :rolleyes:) but whether the public has been mislead given we have been playing the game, which has involved spending our money to vote, only to have the rules of that game changed so close to the end. If indeed Brian did tell us at the beginning that the winner would walk away with 100k - and that is not now the case how does that leave our part in the game?
I would agree with that as well.
Here's my complaint, in full, to Ofcom:
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: "…In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize."
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Yes, that is perfect and put very succinctly. Also, I would have changed many of my voting decisions had I known about the twist. May be worth noting, similar has happened before but ALL housemates had an opportunity to win the money.
This is the most obscenely unfair prize money twist they've ever had.
That would be an intresting scenario, the viewers taking control and boycotting the voting and instead donating to a winners page.
But I'm not sure the trust is there between forum members plus it's fairly complicated legally.
I would love to see so,etching like that happen.
Viewers may be voting to save, but the vote also gives their choice the change to win. It would be like placing a bet on a roulette wheel for someone else & leaving that bet running, until the final spin of the wheel it is entirely uncertain that your friend will win anything, but you place the bet in the hope that on the final spin they will be lucky. What BB are doing is saying bet on your fav for their chance to stay in/ win, except they've now taken the money that they said they would pay out and given it to some shady mate of theirs lurking at the side of the table.
People were led to believe that the winner would get £100,000, all they would need to say is that they only voted because that is what they were led to believe would happen in the event their fav won, & now that's not happening.
I know you think that voters don't have a contract, but the person buying the chocolate bar enters into a legally binding contract, his till receipt being his proof. Every phone or facebook vote leave a receipt and involves the formation of a contract.
People would not be laughed out of court, taking money under false pretenses is serious stuff, BB would be hard pressed to claim that they had kept to their original stated offer on votes to save & on final week votes to win it would be C5/Endamol that would laughed out of court.