After getting a hole in one at a charity golf competition, Linda Chen was under the impression that she had won a brand new Mercedes-Benz as a reward for her remarkable qualities as a golfer and had therefore been awarded the prize. However, she was not given the reward that had been promised to her, which led her to seek redress via the court system in an effort to obtain what was owed to her.
Chen has filed a claim for breach of contract against a number of companies that were involved in the event’s planning and organization, as well as its promotion and sponsorship. After learning that she had not been selected as the winner of the hole-in-one prize, she came to this conclusion. The defendants claim that Chen, a former professional golfer, was ineligible to win the automobile prize because the conditions of the competition, which she signed, stated that only amateurs were eligible for the reward. According to the defendants, Chen should have known that only amateurs were eligible for the reward when she accepted the competition terms. This indicates that Chen did not meet the requirements necessary to take home the prize of a vehicle, as stated by the defendants.
In the case, it is said that since Chen took part in the event, paid the entry fees, and made a hole-in-one, she “accepted the Defendants’ offer, formed a contract, paid consideration, and fulfilled her obligations under the contract.”
According to the administrator of the competition, Chen lied about this information when she signed up for the tournament and did not submit her whole golfing background. The organizer of the competition believes that Chen lied about this information. If Chen had done that, she would have ruled herself ineligible for the prize and prevented herself from being considered for it. In addition, the insurance company that paid for the award mentioned that Chen had signed an affidavit proving her status as a rookie player. This affidavit was presented to the insurance company as evidence. The statement stated in the previous paragraph receives further support from the evidence presented below.
According to Chen, the only time she ever competed at a professional level was between the years 1994 and 1996. Ever since then, she has been legally registered as an amateur with the United States Golf Association (USGA). Chen has never won a tournament since she became an amateur. Between the years 1994 and 1996, she participated in competitions at the professional level during this time period.
The proprietor of the Tournament Golf Event, Timothy Galvin, as well as his company, Ace Hole In One, and Mercedes-Benz of South Orlando, which was in charge of publicizing the prize, have all been named as defendants in the complaint that has been filed against them. The reward was a brand new Mercedes-Benz. The individual who really ended up taking home the award is one of the plaintiffs in this case. Chen is vying for the chance to win either a Mercedes-Benz E-Class sedan or a cash award that is equivalent to the value of the vehicle.
The Mercedes was offered as a reward for anybody who scored a hole-in-one during the competition that took place at the charity event that took place on May 22 at the Isleworth Golf & Country Club in Central Florida. The event was held to raise money for a good cause. The event was held in part to raise money for Nova Southeastern University Orlando, which was one of its principal aims.
When Chen completed her hole-in-one and tried to collect her reward, according to the sources, Galvin refused to accept her success and said that she was disqualified since the award was advertised as being for “Amateur Golfers Only.”
After Chen had completed submitting her Proof of Claim, Galvin sent an email to Chen’s lawyers and notified them that “Ms. Chen’s hole in one prize claim has been denied.”
According to Galvin, Ace Hole in One was the one who decided whether or not Chen was eligible to compete; Galvin said that he was not the one who made the decision. He maintains that the actions that will be taken in the courtroom, the processes that will be followed, will establish who is to blame for the verdict.