Pearsall v. Alexander

572 A.2d 113 (1990)

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

Pearsall v. Alexander

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
572 A.2d 113 (1990)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Harold Pearsall (plaintiff) and Joe Alexander (defendant) were friends for over 25 years. Pearsall and Alexander typically got together twice a week after work, and they would go to a liquor store and buy what they referred to as a package. The package consisted of a half-pint of vodka, orange juice, two cups, and two scratch-off tickets from the D.C. lottery. Pearsall and Alexander would then share the drinks, scratch the lottery tickets, and watch television. Whenever the tickets yielded minor winnings, they would use the winnings to purchase additional tickets. On December 16, 1982, the two friends stopped at the liquor store to pick up a package. Pearsall went into the liquor store alone, and upon returning with the package, asked if Alexander was in on it. Alexander replied yes. However, when Pearsall asked Alexander for his share of the money used to purchase the package, Alexander stated that he did not have any money. After arriving at Alexander’s home, Alexander snatched the tickets from Pearsall’s hand and scratched them. Both tickets were losers. Later that evening, Alexander went to the liquor store to buy a second package, despite earlier claiming that he had no money. Upon Alexander’s return from the store, Pearsall initially repeated Alexander’s earlier behavior, snatching the two tickets from Alexander’s hand. Pearsall later gave Alexander one of the tickets. The two friends each scratched one of them. Pearsall’s ticket was a loser. Alexander’s ticket, however, won $20,000. Alexander later cashed in the ticket but refused to give Pearsall his share. Pearsall filed suit in District of Columbia court for breach of an oral agreement to share the winnings. The trial court ruled in favor of Alexander, finding that the alleged agreement was unenforceable because it was against public policy and in violation of District of Columbia statutory law. Pearsall appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Newman, 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