Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1972 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Tom Hamilton            Opinion No. M-1286
    District Attorney
    64th Judicial District            HE:   Whether a certain adver-
    Courthouse                           tising scheme whereby
    Plainview, Texas   79072                cards are punched and
    tokens drawn is a
    Dear Sir:                               lottery?
    You have requested our opinion concerning the advertising
    scheme of a local merchant awarding prizes by drawings, and have
    inquired as to whether the plan would constitute a lottery in
    violation of Article 654, Vernon's Penal Code, the more rele-
    vant provisions of which read as follows:
    USection 1. (a) 'Lottery' means an enter-
    prise wherein for a consideration the parti-
    cipants are given an opportunity to win a
    prize, the award of.which is determined by
    chance, even though accompanied by some
    skill.
    (b) 'Consideration' means anything which is
    a financial advantage to the promoter or a
    disadvantage to any participant."
    Your description of the plan is as follows:
    "(1) Cards substantially similar to the attached
    example will be printed. These cards will be
    given to any person that comes into the store,
    whether such person makes a purchase or not.
    (2) At the time a card is given to a person, the store
    employee handing out such card will punch out
    the figure nl" at the left end of the card under
    the heading =Free Weekly Punches". Thereafter
    -6308~
    Honorable Tom Hamilton, Page 2        (M-1286)
    the person holding such card will be required to
    bring it back to the store each week to have an
    additional number punched out.
    (3)   If a person receiving a card wishes to make pur-
    chases at the store, then, in addition to the
    weekly punch number the amount of each purchase
    will be punched at the right side of the card.
    The card is retained by the person at all times.
    (4)   A large wire drum will be placed in the store.
    Into this drum will be placed tokens upon which
    will be printed a cash value. The minimum cash
    value to be printed on a token will be $1.00.
    The maximum cash value to be printed on a
    token will be $100.00. All tokens placed
    in the wire drum will be printed with a
    dollar value. The number of tokens to be
    placed in the wire drum will be equal to
    the number of cards printed.
    (5)   At such time as the person holding a card has
    had all of the weekly numbers punched out or
    has had all of the purchase sections of the
    card punched out, he is entitled to surrender
    the card to a store employee and to draw one
    token from the wire drum. The store will
    pay such person the dollar amount shown on
    the token.
    (6)   After a person holding a card has completed
    it in one of the two authorized methods and
    has drawn a token, he is entitled to receive
    a new card.
    (7)   The advertising program is to run for a period
    of twelve weeks, and cards will be given out to
    anyone requesting them during such twelve-
    week period. At the end of the twelve-week
    period, no additional cards will be given out;
    however, any person holding a card at the end
    of the twelve-week period will still be en-
    titled to have the card completed, either by
    continuing to secure a weekly number punch or
    by having the purchase record punched out. At
    -6309-
    Honorable Tom Hamilton, Page 3    (M-1286)
    the time of completion such person will be
    entitled to draw a token from the wire drum."
    Texas cases have consistently held that a lottery is com-
    posed of three elements: "(1) a prize or prizes; (2) the award
    or distribution of the prize or prizes by chance; (3) the pay-
    ment either directly or indirectly by the participants of a
    consideration for the right or privilege of participating." State
    v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 
    386 S.W.2d 169
    , 172 (Tex.Civ.App. 1964,
    ref. n.r.e.1 In the plan under discussion, there are clearly
    prizes and they are clearly distributed by chance. The con-
    trolling question in determining whether this plan constitutes
    a lottery is whether the element of consideration is present.
    In your description of the prize plan, there are two ways
    in which a person may draw a prize: by having all of the weekly
    numbers punched or by having all of the purchase section punched.
    Thus there are two classes of participants: non-purchasers and
    purchasers. A participant upon completing one card is entitled
    to a new card. For the non-purchaser it requires twelve weeks
    to complete the first card, while the purchaser may complete
    several during that same period. The rules also provide that no
    additional cards will be distributed after the end of the initial
    twelve week period. Thus the non-purchaser at most could receive
    two chances. In contrast, the purchaser could receive any num-
    ber, according to how many purchases he made. It is therefore
    obvious that in the proposed scheme the purchaser receives addi-
    tional chances in the give-away solely because of the purchases,
    and in relation to the amount of his purchases. Although it is
    true that anyone may participate without making a purchase, it
    is also true that additional chances are available in exchange
    for puchases made, which but for those purchases are not avail-
    able. The purchases would, then, constitute consideration for
    those additional chances, rendering the plan, as proposed, a
    lottery in violation of Article 654, Vernon's Penal Code.
    SUMMARY
    The proposed advertising scheme, in providing
    more chances for prizes to purchasers than to non-
    purchasers, constitutes a lottery in violation of
    Article 654, Vernon's Penal Code.
    -6310..
    Honorable Tom Hamilton, Page 4        (M-12136)
    Prepared by Lang A. Baker
    Aesistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. E. Allen, Chairman
    Ben Harrison
    Max Flusche
    Gordon Case
    Harriet Burke
    SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -6311-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-1286

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1972

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017