Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D, an attorney, was involved in the defense of Serrano, a highly-publicized capital murder trial. D argued it was impossible for Serrano to commit the murders in question. Serrano would have had to get off a flight in Atlanta's busy airport, travel to the La Quinta several miles away, and arrive in that hotel lobby in only twenty-eight minutes. In an interview on NBC News D stated, 'I challenge anybody to show me, and guess what? Did they bring in any evidence to say that somebody made that route, did so? State's burden of proof. If they can do it, I'll challenge 'em. I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.' NBC did not broadcast D's original interview during Serrano's trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict in Serrano's case. In December 2006, NBC featured an edited version of D's interview in a national broadcast of its 'Dateline' television program. The edited version removed much of the surrounding commentary, including D's references to the State's burden of proof, and D's statement aired as, 'I challenge anybody to show me-I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.' P saw the edited version and understood the statement as a serious challenge, open to anyone, to 'make it off the plane and back to the hotel within [twenty-eight] minutes'-that is, in the prosecution's timeline-in return for one million dollars. P interpreted it as an offer to form a unilateral contract-an offer he decided to accept by performing the challenge. P performed and then sent D a copy of the recording of his journey and a letter requesting payment. D refused payment and denied that he made a serious offer in the interview. P sued D. The court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. P discovered the e unedited interview with NBC and learned that Dateline had independently edited the interview before it aired. P filed suit in the United States District Court. D moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment; P was unaware of the unedited interview at the time he attempted to perform the challenge, and thus he could not accept an offer he did not know existed; the challenge in the unedited interview was unambiguously directed to the prosecution only, and thus P could not accept an offer not open to him. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.