Geis v. Continental Oil Co.

511 P.2d 725 (1973)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Geis v. Continental Oil Co.

Utah Supreme Court
511 P.2d 725 (1973)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Elizabeth and Ed Geis (plaintiffs) participated in a contest held by Continental Oil Company (Continental) (defendant), offered through Continental’s service stations. The contest, called Brand in Orbit, involved service stations distributing to their customers small cards containing printing that would become visible when the surface was scraped off by a coin. All cards were free, no purchase was necessary, and the contest was open to all licensed drivers. In the relevant part of the contest, each card concealed one word, and the object was to acquire cards that could be combined to state one of Continental’s advertising slogans. One advertising slogan, Ride the Hot One, was paired with a prize of $1,000. The word Hot was the control word in the slogan, the word most difficult to find. With the assistance of some of Ed’s employees, the Geises acquired 522 cards. From those cards, the Geises claimed to complete the slogan Ride the Hot One. Elizabeth claimed that she obtained two cards containing the word Hot, but that each time the word appeared and then vanished. Elizabeth brought the cards to Continental’s agent and demanded the $1,000 prize. Continental refused on the basis that the printing was illegible. A jury trial was held, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Geises, awarding them $1,000 in general damages and $1,500 in punitive damages. In response to the jury verdict, the trial court ordered that either a new trial be held or the Geises agree to a verdict reduced to $1,000. The Geises agreed to the reduced verdict. Continental appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the theory that the Geises did not comply with the terms of the contest and, therefore, could not be found to have won. Before proceeding to the merits of that argument, the Utah Supreme Court, on its own accord, analyzed whether the contest was an illegal lottery under Utah law. Neither party briefed nor argued the issue.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Callister, C.J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Crockett, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership