MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > If he failed, would he be able to keep t...

If he failed, would he be able to keep the money that was left-over?


Cause if that was the case, going for the 300 million would be better then taking the million cause he could just enjoy the 30 million and not try to spend it all.

reply

no, I believe the stipulation was that he leave only with the clothes on his back

reply

But let's say he tried, but failed...and he had like five thousand bucks left on him. Would he be able to keep it even though he failed to spend it all? Like what happens to the remaining money if he fails?

reply

Angela kept strict records of Brewster's spending of the 30 million, down to the cent, so he couldn't have got away with any and the remaining money would probably be added to the 300 million sum, is my guess.

reply

[deleted]

That's a good point. I don't recall it being mentioned, but I presume his very wealthy relative and the lawyers may have thought of that and stipulated that he would lose whatever was left at the end of the 30 Days.

However, they would still get their 300mill, so why bother?

If they left that loophole, then Monty could have just taken the 30mill and gone on to a serious life of luxury.

reply

No, Rupert says he gets nothing if he failed. I guess the money left over from the 30 million would be turned over to the firm. Remember when Monty thought he still had 20,000 left? He said he would sign what was needed and leave. That must've also meant giving up the 20,000 as well.

reply

No, he wouldn't, although the $30 Million was his to spend, but it was still in the estate, and money not spent by Monty would've remained in the estate. This is how I saw it...Rupert set aside $330 Million dollars for Monty, Monty had to spend $30 Million of it in order to get ALL the money, or Granvel and Baxter would take control of the estate and divide it as they saw fit...after their considerable fee.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries

reply

Nope, there were 3 possible outcomes:

1) Monty wimps out and takes the $1 million
2) Monty agrees to the terms, spends $30 million according to the rules, and gets $300 million.
3) Monty agrees to the terms, fails to spend $30 million according to the rules, and gets "diddly." Anything left over would revert to the estate.

Obviously if he could keep the leftover money, he could just spend $0 and keep $30 million. That would make the "wimp" clause totally pointless.

It's spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove'

reply

No, he had to give any leftover money back. Otherwise, what would've been the point? He could've taken the 30million, and then just put it in the bank. He needn't have bothered trying to spend the money, and just kept it. The lawyers get their $300million, Brewster gets $30million. Everybody is happy.

For the challenge to make any sense, he would have to give back anything he didn't spend.

reply

There are a lot of great answers here. I would like to add that Monty didn't inherit the $30 million. The will stipulated to get his inheritance of $300 million he had to meet the terms, spend the 30 in 30 with nothing left. The 30 he spent was still part of the estate and if there were any assets of value they would belong to the estate.

reply

He would have to give the money back, however; he would still be comfortable for the rest of his life. Everyone would see how generous he was and all the people he helped would remember him. There would be a lot of public sympathy for him and people would probably send him money. Also, a company would probably give him a good job, because it would look great hiring a man who was so generous and down on his luck.

reply

A company would not hire him. Fortune 500 companies don't become Fortune 500 companies by being generous. A good "business movie" to this point
Other People's Money (1991) with Danny DeVito

reply

he could have been dishonest and bribed the accountant to say he spent all the money.

reply