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.

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    91
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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!

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s utter nonsense. A gift only counts if you make it home with the gift? Where did you come up with that?

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m guessing it’s based on the rules of the schoolyard game to run from one side of a field to the other while avoiding the corporate bullies in the center.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Gift law

        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.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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

          • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            They couldn’t argue it was the Uncles responsibility to tell the child. The Uncle was told, and would also have been told to not tell the child. They set out to make the child believe they got the PlayStation because they wanted the reaction from the child.

    • PiousAgnostic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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?

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      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…

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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?

          • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Gift law, what the original person was talking about, literally states that the donor must intend on giving the gift.

            The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee.

            If you come over to my house and say “hey, nice PS5” and I say “you want it? It’s yours!” and then before you leave I say “I was just joking, you can’t leave with my PS5.” You really think you can go to the police and have me charged with theft?

            • tyler@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              If you did it on fucking tv then yes, you absolutely can, you’ve made your intent clear to tens of thousands, if not millions of people. You don’t get to take the intent back when the cameras turn off. The timing here matters.

              • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                18 hours ago

                That’s mixing up actions with intent. Their actions made it seem like it was a gift, sure. Their intent was that it was a prank. They even told the uncle it was a prank from the start.

                If I go to a store an stick a PS5 into my jacket I can’t be charged with theft. It looks like theft, but intent to steal needs to be shown. How do they know my intent isn’t to pay for it? It’s not theft until I leave the store without paying. Just like sticking a PS5 into my jacket isn’t instantly theft, handing someone a PS5 isn’t instantly a gift. Actions and intent are different things.

                The article has been updated to say they’re actually giving the kid a PS5 because of the bad press so in the end they’re doing the right thing anyways.

    • Beacon@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Intent matters but not if the intent was to deceive. If the act had all the elements that represent giving a gift, then legally it WAS giving a gift. Otherwise all gifts could be taken back at any time just by claiming that it was actually a joke.