Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1960 )


Menu:
  •   .I        .
    TEE   ATTORNEY              GENES
    OF      TEXAS
    Auemmv    II.   TEXAS
    September 9. 1960
    Mr.    0.       S.    Moore
    District Attorney
    Runt County Courthouse
    Greenville, Texas                        Opinion No. WW-930
    Re:    Does a bonus card distributed
    by a grocery3 which card con-
    tains spaces for recording
    the amount of purchases and
    also the number of store visits,
    constitute a lottery in viola-
    Dear Mr.             Moore:                     tion of the penal code?
    Your request for an opinion haspbeen received and carefully
    considered by this office. We quote your letter as follows:
    "A question has arisen with respect to whether or
    not the use by local merchantsof a 'bonus card' con-
    stitutes a,lottery in violation of the Penal Code.
    "The exact type of card to be used is enclosed
    herein. /Ihis bonuscard bears the name of the merchant
    and his address and has a serial number printed on the
    back side of same. It is one card, but is.divlded Into
    two sections by a heavy black line as appears on the
    face of the card. Each of the two sections are separate
    from the other and are independent of the other. The
    right two-thirds of the card Is know&and referred to
    as the ‘weekly store visit recordl.
    "Printed around the edge of the purchase record
    side of the card are a series of'money values ranging
    from lO# to $2.00, totaling $100.00. These money values
    are designed to be punched out with a hand punch each
    time a person makes a purchase and the amount of such
    purchase is punched along the edge of the purchase
    record side of the card. On a designated day each .week,
    the holder of the card can obtain a free $2.00 purchase
    punch. When the purchase record is completely punched,
    a flat $1.00 is given to the holder of the card. ThlS
    amount does not vary and is guaranteed. The purchase
    record section of the card is similar to the trading
    stamp program, which I do not question, ,being in effect
    a trade discount privilege and applicable to all custom-
    ers on an equal basis.
    0. s.   Moore, page 2 (W-930)
    "The left portion of the card, the weekly store
    visit record, applies to anyone. Upon the weekly store
    visit record being completely punched a specified number
    of times, and without any purchases being made, required
    or requested, the seal appearing on the left section of
    the card Is opened by a store employee and If the skill
    question is answered correctly by the card holder, the
    amount of money printed under the seal Is paid.
    "The cards are distributed to the public free of
    charge and without any obligation, requisite or require-
    ment of purchases or any other kind or character of
    obligations. At the,time the bonus cards are distributed,
    there are likewise distributed detailed, itemized and
    specific instructions as to how the progrsmoperates and
    same Is fully explanatory. A copy of such instructions
    Is ~enclosed herewith and a reading of same fully apprises
    thenreader of the operation of~the program. In addition
    to the~bonus cards and instructions being distributed,
    'fact sheets' that contain the skill questions and answers
    printed under the seals,are distributed. A copy of the
    'fact sheets' used Is enclosed herewith.
    "Anyone holding a card may obtain from any store
    employee a free 'weekly Store visit nunch'. The program
    does not require any person tonu=hase any merchandise
    whatsoever In order to particjpate In attempting to
    answer the skill question printed under the seal.
    "Under the above given set of facts, and aisuming
    that the users of the cards strictly adhere to same,
    please advise whether the use of the bonus cards as above
    outlined constitutes a lottery in violation of the Penal
    Code of the State of Texas.!'
    This Is the second request received by this Department for
    an opinion based upon this particular "Profit Sharing Bonus Card".
    The other request was answered in Opinion No. ``-843 where'lt
    was held that the card did constitute a lottery under the laws
    of the State of Texas. The two portions of the card, with the
    set of Instructions given in that ,factsituatlon, were used
    together in such a way that the bonus on the "store visit" por-
    tion of the card could probably not be won until the "purchase
    record" end had been completely punched out. This office made
    it clear in both Opinion No. ``-843 and in Opinion No. ``-840
    that in any scheme where the customer is ,glvenan advantage over
    the non-customer, the element of consideration is present.
    Mr. 0. S. Moore, page 3 (W-930)
    We are now called upon to state whether the same bonus
    card constitutes a lottery when used with a different set of
    instructions, pertinent parts of which follow:
    1. All bonus cards are dlstrlbuted free and without
    any requirement of any purchase whatsoever.
    2. The bonus card advertising plan entails two
    separate, distinct and independent plans for distribution
    of cash.             (1) The purchase discount bonus, and
    (2) The St%'v%t     game of skill program.
    4. The store visit program is separate, distinct
    and independent of the purchase discount bonus program.
    Every week the holder of a ticket visits the store, one
    of the store visit numbers appearing on the face of the
    card Is punched out. No purchases, whatsoever, are re-
    quired to have the,store visit punch entered on the'card.
    When all of the store visits are punch& out and lrrespec-
    tive of whether or not any of the -purchase records are
    punched, the seal Is lifted by the store-manager or assls-
    tant store-manager, and the holder of the card is asked
    the question which is concealed under the seal. If the
    holder answers the question correctly, then the Jndlcated
    bonus is paid to the holder. If the holder is unable to
    correctly answer, no bonus is ~paid at all.
    5. So far as the question under the seal,is con-
    cerned, it Is not related to any purchase made.~ It can
    be opened when the storevisit punches are completed,
    whether the purchases have,been made or not, and either
    before or after the purchases discount has been paid.
    The purchase discount will be paid whether or not the
    seal has been opened and independent of the seal,
    7. A person, other than the checker, will be deslg-
    nated to punch the free visit record on the cards, and
    information sheets will be distributed at a place in the
    store, clearly marked and, away from the check-stand.
    In answering your question, we will take the two portions
    of the card and examine them separately. There seems to be
    little doubt but that the purchase record side of the card Is
    not a lottery in violation of the penal code if the stores and
    employees adhere strictly to the instruction sheet attached to
    your letter. As you stated, this portion of the "bonus card"
    is merely a trade discount privilege and applicable to all cus-
    tomers on an equal basis.
    ,
    Mr. 0. S. Moore, page 4 (W&930)
    The "weekly store visit" end of the card will now be dis-
    cussed. It is well settled that a lottery consists of three
    essential elements, 'namely: (1) A prize or prizes, (2) the
    award or distribution of the prize or prizes by chance, and
    (3) the payment either directly or indirectly by the particl-
    pants of a consideration for the right or rivilege of partici-
    Cole v. State, 133 Tex.Crim.R. 54 ii , 
    112 S.W.2d 725
    ‘3%;7:
    The first element is certainly present with prizes from
    $1.00 to $1,000.00.
    The second element of chance is also present In the "weekly
    store visit" portion of the card. Everyone receives a prize,
    but the amount of the prize is based upon chance.
    It only remains to be determined whether the third element
    was present, that is, the payment of a consideration by the par-
    ticipants. We think this question has been completely foreclosed
    by the Court of Criminal Appeals In Brlce vs. State, 156 Tex.
    Crim.R. 372, 
    242 S.W.2d 433
    .  We quote from the opinion:
    "As shown by the exhibits and~the testimony,
    anyone could register once each day for the three day
    period and thus become eligible for the drawing by
    going~to the mezzanine floor and writing their name,
    address and telephone number on a registration card.
    Some six or eight thousand cards were filled out prior
    to the drawing held at the store when the prizes shown
    In the state's second exhibit were given away.
    "One could not be a prize winner without so
    registering at the store and, as It was widely adver-
    tised, no registrant was required to buy anything or
    to be at the store at the time of the drawing.
    1 )
    l   * *
    II
    . . . it is clear that three things must concur
    to establish a thing as a lottery: (a) A prize or
    prizes; (b) the award or distribution of the prize or
    prizes by chance; (c) the payment either directly or
    indirectly by the participants of a consideration for
    the right or privilege of participating.
    fl* * *
    "'The fact that the holder of the drawing expects
    thereby to receive, or in fact does receive, some benefit
    Mr. 0. S. Moore, page 5 (W-930)
    in the way of patronage or otherwise, as a result of the
    drawing, does not supply,the element of consideration
    paid by the chance holder for the chance . . . .I
    . The crux of the opinion lies in the third
    section, or section 'cl, reading as follows: 'the payment
    either directly or indirectly by the participants of a
    consideration for the right or privilege of participating.'
    "The 'consideration' in this case which moves from
    the parties participating in the drawing for the prize,
    or prizes, to appellant is entirely fanciful. It is not
    sufficiently substantial to be classed as a reality."
    If merely going to the store, as held In the Brlce case,
    did not constitute a consideration we can see no reason for
    holding that additional visits would so so, assuming the cus-
    tomer was required to pay nothing and was not obligated to buy
    anything. We are ,thereforeof the opinion and so hold that
    the proposed plan does not constitute a lottery.
    SUMMARY
    The "purchase record" portion of this bonus card,
    used with the,instruction sheet attached to this re-
    quest and.distrlbuted by a grocery, does not constitute
    a lottery in violation ,of the Texas Penal Code; neither
    does the "store visit" portion of this same card,
    distributed by a grocery and used with the instruction
    sheet attached to this request.
    Yours   very   truly,
    WILL WIISON
    Attorney General of Texas
    wRs:vj                                 By:
    APPROVED:                                      Assistant
    OPINION Ctii.X'iTEE                    RZVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman                GENERAL BY:
    Marvin Thom:,L:                                Houghton Brownlee
    C. K. Richcrds
    John Reeves
    Ben Harrison
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-930

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1960

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017