The skit that “missed the mark” occurred in a break in play during the second quarter of Charlotte’s game against the Philadelphia 76ers on Monday. The child was brought onto the court with Hugo, the Hornets’ mascot, dressed as Santa Claus. After a letter to Santa requesting a PS5 was read out loud, a cheerleader came out with a bag containing the video game console.
The young fan was visibly overjoyed as he received the pricy gift. However, according to an online acquaintance, he was less happy when the cameras turned off and a Hornets staffer took it away, replacing it with a jersey.
They never intended on giving the kid the gift. If they allowed them to go home with the PS5, and then requested it back the next day, then the family would have a good argument that ownership was transferred to them. This was just a bad joke.
Edit: on lemmy.world it’s like I never left reddit!
Don’t be defensive. I didn’t downvote you, but when you pull false claims out of your ass that make no sense, that’s going to happen…
because you said they never intended on giving the kid the gift. It doesn’t matter what they intended. They literally did give the kid the gift. and it isn’t a joke in any sense of the word. They gave the kid a gift, turned off the cameras, and took it back and gave him something else. That’s just theft. It’s not a joke, there’s nobody that would see it as a joke, it’s not even possible to interpret it as a joke, as who would be the audience?
Why would the act of going home change the legality? Or intent?
If i take a $20 bill and hand it to a stranger in front of witnesses and say, “Here you go, this is a gift.”
If in 5 mins, I snatch that bill back and walk away. That’s legal? Because he didn’t touch his house first, and I never had intent to give a gift?
It’s like a game of tag, once an item is exchanged you best start running home!
That’s utter nonsense. A gift only counts if you make it home with the gift? Where did you come up with that?
The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee
Intent needs to be proven or it’s not a gift. They did not intend on giving a gift.
The cheerleader and other people around were reportedly also confused when the PS5 was confiscated. The child’s uncle was apparently informed he wouldn’t get to keep the gift, but not the child himself.
They unfortunately made the kid fully believe their whole intent was to give him the gift. That’s so sad for the kid. :(
I wonder how this would play out in court, though. The company can argue that it was the uncle’s responsibility to inform the kid as he was with him, but the kid’s parents can argue the uncle wasn’t his legal guardian and that he needed to be informed personally to play along.
Idk, this armchair is comfy though. lol
