My friend ‘won’ a $700 jackpot on my antique slot machine. I said he can’t keep the cash — now he’s threatening to sue me

Let’s pretend, for example, that Kelly had an antique slot machine in her home that she inherited from her grandmother. She had a house party, and Ted, who was a friend-of-a-friend, came over and started putting quarters into her machine uninvited.

Kelly’s slot machine had been there for a while, but when Ted was playing, it did something it had never done before. Ted “won” the jackpot, which was $700, and the machine started spitting out quarters as Ted began stuffing in his pockets.

The only problem is, Kelly never intended for anyone to actually win. She’d handed out quarters over the years and let friends keep the few dollars that came out if they won. But it never occurred to her that $700 might come spilling out of the slot machine. And at that moment, she felt that if Ted took the jackpot winnings home, he’d actually be stealing her funds. Kelly and her friends made Ted leave without his winnings, but now Ted’s threatening to sue her for the cash.

Does Ted have a case in this situation, and should Kelly pay up?

Did Kelly violate a contract with Ted by not paying?

Figuring out whether Ted should get the funds or not can be a little complicated.

Ted’s strongest argument may be that he had a “contract” with Kelly because she made an “offer” that if he put in a quarter, he could keep his winnings. If that’s the case, then when Ted put in the quarter, he accepted her offer through performance, thus creating a unilateral contract.

Courts have, in the past, held that “an offer to award a prize in a contest will result in an enforceable contract if the offer is properly accepted by the rendition of the requested performance.” In other words, if you say “do this to enter a contest,” and another person does, then you’ve created a contract you must perform by providing the prize.

So it’s possible that Ted could argue:

• The presence of the slot machine was an offer to enter into a contest
• He accepted the offer by putting in his quarter
• His quarter was consideration (or a thing of value required to create a valid contract)
• He fulfilled the requirement to earn the prize, so he gets to keep the winnings

His case here would likely be stronger if Kelly encouraged him to play, or expressly told him he could keep any money he won. However, he could still argue that the presence of the slot machine was the offer, especially if he knew that Kelly had paid out smaller prizes in the past.

Of course, the court would consider all of the surrounding circumstances in determining if a valid contract was created. So Ted’s case would hinge on the court believing that the mere presence of a novelty slot machine constituted a binding offer to pay someone a big jackpot if they won the prize.