Lebron rejected special made $3,000 birthday cake

[ItsSensei]

To be fair though, the cake does look really ugly and "QUEENISH" with the crown slanted like that must I add.

[phx#7]

He's still financially responsible for his "people's" first agreeing and then backing out. If Lebron's a man, he'll accept responsibility for his underling's mistake, apologize to the woman and visit the cake shop. But, he's probably not a man, so that probably won't happen.

All his people did was hire a party planner and that is the person who worked out a deal with the baker. When they got to the party and saw the 2 cakes they chose the one they liked better.

[Kobe8Forever]

Whether or not Lebron personally knew about what I'm now calling "cakegate" is irrelevant. The only question is whether Lebron is bound to honor the agreement made by his representatives.

Even if Lebron did not grant his representatives the right to enter into this contract, the legal doctrine of "apparent authority" refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent (lebron's posse) had authority to act. This means a principal (Lebron) is bound by the agent's actions, even though the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party (said poor baker) is given an assurance, which she relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given.

Here, Lebron's posse promised the baker an endorsement in exchange for a cake. The woman, relying on the promise, spent $6,000 in materials, labor, and opportunity costs. Despite delivering on her promise, Lebron's posse of no good hoodlums failed to deliver on the promise of an endorsement.

The baker's remedy is the $6,000 for the costs incurred. Furthermore, while emotional distress cannot be measured in monetary terms, a $1,000,000 reward would not be unreasonable in light of the outrageous behavior of Lebron and said posse.

[J~Rush]

Furthermore, while emotional distress cannot be measured in monetary terms, a $1,000,000 reward would not be unreasonable in light of the outrageous behavior of Lebron and said posse.

[MikeM]

lol @ the analysis going on in this thread over a cake.

[Bskey]

Why is everyone attacking her and the cake? Lebron's people are at fault here.

They should have told her what they wanted or looked at her other work BEFORE she made the cake. It may be ugly but she still had to work to make it.

[Sofia]

Whether or not Lebron personally knew about what I'm now calling "cakegate" is irrelevant. The only question is whether Lebron is bound to honor the agreement made by his representatives.

Even if Lebron did not grant his representatives the right to enter into this contract, the legal doctrine of "apparent authority" refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent (lebron's posse) had authority to act. This means a principal (Lebron) is bound by the agent's actions, even though the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party (said poor baker) is given an assurance, which she relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given.

Here, Lebron's posse promised the baker an endorsement in exchange for a cake. The woman, relying on the promise, spent $6,000 in materials, labor, and opportunity costs. Despite delivering on her promise, Lebron's posse of no good hoodlums failed to deliver on the promise of an endorsement.

The baker's remedy is the $6,000 for the costs incurred. Furthermore, while emotional distress cannot be measured in monetary terms, a $1,000,000 reward would not be unreasonable in light of the outrageous behavior of Lebron and said posse.

This post is the one. Remember it. This is the post that will make the general board realise how stupid the irrational lebron hate is and has been.

[daniel3]

I'll eat it if she's gonna throw it away.

[TheOUTLAW]

Lebron needs to hire new PR. just when i thought he was turning the corner. What d* head, i understand that its his ppl doing this, but he needs to realize that ppl put work into this and pay for it. If he's the king, be a grown a* man and step in. She should have known when it comes to Lebron, the publicity she'll get is almost never positive.

Most publicity people will tell you that there is no such think as negative publicity. It's all about getting people talking about you.

[FlashTheKilla]

The cake is a lie.

[Den Masters]

The cake resembles Cavs color scheme lol.

[TheOUTLAW]

People refuse items all the time when they don't measure up to the agreement that was made.

[heatwillbeback]

Whether or not Lebron personally knew about what I'm now calling "cakegate" is irrelevant. The only question is whether Lebron is bound to honor the agreement made by his representatives.

Even if Lebron did not grant his representatives the right to enter into this contract, the legal doctrine of "apparent authority" refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent (lebron's posse) had authority to act. This means a principal (Lebron) is bound by the agent's actions, even though the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party (said poor baker) is given an assurance, which she relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given.

Here, Lebron's posse promised the baker an endorsement in exchange for a cake. The woman, relying on the promise, spent $6,000 in materials, labor, and opportunity costs. Despite delivering on her promise, Lebron's posse of no good hoodlums failed to deliver on the promise of an endorsement.

The baker's remedy is the $6,000 for the costs incurred. Furthermore, while emotional distress cannot be measured in monetary terms, a $1,000,000 reward would not be unreasonable in light of the outrageous behavior of Lebron and said posse.

you do know contracts could be made where acceptance depends on taste. "Paint this to my liking" is an example

you throw legal jargon around (let me guess, first year law student just finished semester #1) without much knowledge.

I have no clue what exactly was entered into, nor do I really care.

[TheOUTLAW]

The cake resembles Cavs color scheme lol.

I wish people would stop saying that





The cake to the right has a more burgundy color on it. Not to mention the gold.

[Kobe8Forever]

you do know contracts could be made where acceptance depends on taste. "Paint this to my liking" is an example

I have no clue what exactly was entered into

Alright then, thanks for playing Heat fan.

[Lozar]

I'm amazed that people haven't ripped on the other cake it screams sweet 16 birthday party to me.

I mean the LJ at the top seems like it was created for a teenage girl.

Both cakes are really quite bad and are wayy over the top trying to draw your attention.

You know its bad when I could take the cake they used and make minor alterations and a teenage girl would think its quite cool.

[USA]

The cake resembles Cavs color scheme lol.

I wish people would stop saying that

The cake to the right has a more burgundy color on it. Not to mention the gold.

Come on man. It resembles their colors. Not perfect but close enough to be noticeable.

[Lozar]

This cake looks far more like a cake that a man would want. If you enjoy super expensive extravagant cakes that is.

[heatwillbeback]

you do know contracts could be made where acceptance depends on taste. "Paint this to my liking" is an example

I have no clue what exactly was entered into

Alright then, thanks for playing Heat fan.

selective quotes missing the whole point of the post. You know as little than me. The difference is the hater inside you forces you to enter into a hypothetical

[Kobe8Forever]

you do know contracts could be made where acceptance depends on taste. "Paint this to my liking" is an example

I have no clue what exactly was entered into

Alright then, thanks for playing Heat fan.

selective quotes missing the whole point of the post. You know as little than me. The difference is the hater inside you forces you to enter into a hypothetical

The only things I cut out was (1) your ad hominem attack on me by calling me a first year law student and (2) the fact that you do not care about what was entered into.

Neither of these things are relevant to the topic, but I suppose we could discuss these issues as well.