## Facts

- A Cudahy, Wisconsin referendum asked voters whether to fluoridate the municipal water supply.
- The Cudahy Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees) publicly supported fluoridation; James Quirk opposed it and campaigned against fluoridation.
- Quirk distributed a brochure stating he would pay the Jaycees $1,000 if (a) “a daily dose of four glasses” of fluoridated water could not cause specified “dermatologic, gastrointestinal and neurological disorders,” and (b) he had “misrepresented matters” in the brochure.
- The Jaycees consulted authorities and literature, concluded the stated conditions were satisfied, demanded $1,000, and Quirk refused.
- The Jaycees sued for (1) a finding of misrepresentation, (2) a determination that four daily glasses of fluoridated water could not cause the listed disorders, and (3) a $1,000 money judgment.
- A jury found for the Jaycees, and the trial court entered judgment for $1,000; Quirk appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Quirk’s brochure “challenge” created an enforceable unilateral contract obligating payment upon the Jaycees’ performance.
2. Whether the “challenge” was an unenforceable wager that courts will not enforce.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
- The court characterized the “challenge” as a wagering arrangement tied to proving or disproving a contested factual proposition in a political campaign.
- Because wagering obligations are not judicially enforceable, the Jaycees could not recover the $1,000.
- The court rejected using contract litigation to obtain judicial determinations on contested scientific and policy claims presented to the electorate.

## Legal Principles

- A promise to pay money conditioned on establishing the truth or falsity of a debated factual proposition—made as a campaign “challenge”—may be treated as a wager rather than a contract.
- Courts will not enforce wagering arrangements, even if framed as an apparent unilateral offer and even if the offeree incurs time and expense attempting to prove the proposition.
- Courts should avoid adjudicating the correctness of political-campaign claims through money challenges that would convert public policy disputes into judicially enforceable bets.

## Conclusion

The court held that the $1,000 campaign “challenge” concerning fluoridation was, in legal effect, a wager and therefore unenforceable; the judgment for the Jaycees was reversed and the complaint ordered dismissed.


Cudahy Junior Chamber of Commerce v. Quirk, 41 Wis. 2d 698 (Wis. 1969)