Bob’s Fowl Play: The Tale of the Telly and the Troublesome Chicken

Once upon a modern retail odyssey, Bob sauntered into a promotional wonderland at his local shopping emporium, where a peculiar offer caught his eye: “Buy a TV, bag a bird!” The thrifty in Bob chirped with joy as he exchanged his hard-earned cash for a shiny new television and, to his bemusement, a clucking chicken—on the house!

The chicken, a feathery bonus that came without a price tag, seemed like the universe rewarding Bob for his savvy shopping skills. Little did he know, this bird was about to lay more than just eggs. Following a hearty dinner where the guest of honor was, unfortunately, the gifted galliform, Bob’s belly began to rumble with ominous portents.

What started as a peckish indulgence escalated into a gastrointestinal tempest, spiraling Bob into the depths of digestive despair. His trusty throne became a porcelain prison, and soon after, the sterile embrace of a hospital bed was his only solace.

Determined to seek redress for his poultry-induced plight, Bob, now slightly less rotund, waddled back to the scene of the culinary crime. With the fervor of a man who’d been wronged by a free lunch, he demanded compensation. The shopping mall, however, perched on the legal high ground, retorted with a cluck and a shrug, “A gift, dear shopper, bears no receipt!”

They proclaimed the chicken a gesture of goodwill, void of contractual strings or liability—especially for those who dine and dash to the ER. Bob’s beak dropped in disbelief. Not a penny had parted from his pocket for the perplexing poultry, and thus, they argued, the mall’s hands were cleaner than sanitized shopping carts.

Law In A Minute

The provision of a “free” chicken with the sale of a television could be construed as a commercial strategy to enhance the attractiveness of the television sale rather than a pure gift. The essential legal character of the transaction is that of a sale since the value of the chicken is arguably embedded in the overall price of the television. Therefore, even though the chicken was presented as a gift, it was tied to the sale of the television and may be considered part of the overall sales contract.

In Bob’s case, if the chicken was indeed considered a part of the sale rather than a pure gift, the shopping mall, as the seller/donor, may be liable for damages if it can be proven that they were aware of or had guaranteed the absence of any defects in the chicken that led to Bob’s injury. If the chicken was diseased or otherwise flawed in a manner that could foreseeably lead to harm, and the shopping mall knew of this defect, they would bear liability under the same conditions as a seller.

Legal Basis

Civil Code

Article 662

In the event that the property subject to a gift is flawed, the donor shall not bear any liability. In the case of a gift with an encumbrance, if the gifted property is defective, the donor shall assume the same liability as a seller, but only within the limits of the encumbrance. Should the donor intentionally fail to disclose any defect or warrant that the property is free from defects, resulting in losses to the donee, the donor shall be liable for damages.