Deal or no Deal ... new return date?

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:51 AM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jan 12 2006, 09:40 PM\']Ah.  I stand corrected then.  When I watch The People's Court, they run a disclaimer before the credits that states that "The plantiff and defendant have been paid from a fund for their appearance......".   I thought it was an industry wide standard.  Ah well, at least I know the answer now.

[snapback]107528[/snapback]

[/quote]
So you made that assumption based on the People's Court disclaimer?

[snapback]107534[/snapback]

[/quote]
Speaking of which, can someone explain exactly how that disclaimer is supposed to be read?  I recall hearing inteviews with Wapner in the past that seem to indicate that a judgment for the plaintiff results in the defendant paying the plaintiff what he's owed, minus the fund awarded to both litigants, while the disclaimer seems to indicate that the fund is subtracted from the judgment and then the REMAINDER is split evenly between the two litigants.

Can someone shed some light on this?

Doug

[tvrandywest]

Randy: Would "non-union extras" be a fair description?

That nails it. But just to take the conversation further, while the "non-union extras" description is a perfect fit for the vast majority of these gigs, it wouldn't be totally accurate when applied to the few times that I've witnessed an audience wrangling company paying their folks in cold, hard cash as a special inducement. There's a fine line of legality that might be considered crossed when trying to classify these employees as independent contractors.

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 07:03 AM\']...the People's Court disclaimer... seems to indicate that the fund is subtracted from the judgment and then the REMAINDER is split evenly between the two litigants,

[snapback]107551[/snapback]

[/quote]
The inducement for the litigants to agree to bring these cases (which were originally filed in Small Claims Court) to television is the payment of the judge's award, plus added cash that can be split evenly by the two parties. The "fund" is always greater than the total amount being sought by the plaintiff. How much greater? It's negotiable; the "fund" is different for each case.

The most attractive part of the inducement is that, as the plaintiff, you will actually be paid. In real Small Claims cases winning the judgement is only the first step. The harder part is satisfying the judgement, a.k.a. getting the money from the defendant. That's where the "fun" begins for the "winner", as he usually has to hire an officer of the court in attempts to recover from the "loser's" bank accounts, by garnishing wages, or seizing property.


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 11:35 AM\']
The most attractive part of the inducement is that, as the plaintiff, you will actually be paid.

Randy
tvrandywest.com

[snapback]107557[/snapback]

[/quote]

Which means, since there's a paid winner and a non-paid loser, it's a game show.

I fully expect "PeoplesCourtMan" to begin half-baked show summaries today.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).

Let's say the award to the plaintiff is $200, and the "fund" is $500. Question 1: Is that $500 changing hands ($200 from the fund, the rest split), or $700 ($200 from the defendant, the rest split)? Question 2: Would some (all?) losing *defendants* still end up with more money than they had when they arrived?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:22 PM\']I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).

Let's say the award to the plaintiff is $200, and the "fund" is $500. Question 1: Is that $500 changing hands ($200 from the fund, the rest split), or $700 ($200 from the defendant, the rest split)? Question 2: Would some (all?) losing *defendants* still end up with more money than they had when they arrived?

[snapback]107584[/snapback]

[/quote]
Okay.

The "fund" is set before the case. So, say the dude is suing for $1000, and the fund is set at $1200. The two possible outcomes:

JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff gets $1100 (the $1000 plus half of the remainder), defendant gets $100.

JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANT: Plaintiff and defendant split the $1200, each receive $600.

So, yeah, everyone goes away with something regardless of the outcome.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 10:45 AM\']Which means, since there's a paid winner and a non-paid loser, it's a game show.

[snapback]107558[/snapback]

[/quote]
Doesn't that make GONG or STAR SEARCH game shows as well?

If yes, I'll gladly change my name to GongShowMan and start half-baked recaps of 30-year-old <<Chuckie Baby>>stuff<<end/Chuckie Baby>>.  

EDIT:  Geez.  GONG and FF mark their 30th anniversaries this year.  Suddenly I feel very old.

Doug

[Robert Hutchinson]

Thanks, Chris. That was what I suspected the setup was, but I had some doubt about the defendant getting paid even if he lost.

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:22 PM\']I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).

[snapback]107584[/snapback]

[/quote]
The evil genius, Prof Lemon, has it right with his $1200 example.

JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff gets $1100 (the $1000 plus half of the remainder), defendant gets $100.
JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANT: Plaintiff and defendant split the $1200, each receive $600.

Randy
tvrandywest.com