tralfamidorgooglycr
I apparently misunderstood one statement of yours
("A material condition of a contract that is not spelled out
at the time the contract is made is VOID") and you
corrected me.
Now that you have clarified that one point, would you
care to respond to any of the other comments I made?
To refresh your memory, I said....
Re: Your "$3,000/60 days" argument
If I didn't agree to the terms, I wouldn't have made the bet.
If I did agree to the terms, I would have honored them.
If I failed to honor the terms, I would be S.O.L.
Re: Your argument that the time restriction would be valid
if it were EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED to the customer BEFORE
the wager was placed and accepted
I'm not as sure as you are that sports books do not inform
customers of their policies before processing wagers.
Re: Your questioning if welshing (and saving three grand) is
worth the ill will that doing so engenders
Apparently, Stratosphere thinks it is. But, if I owned a casino,
I would not.
Maybe you didn't respond because you know I'm right and
you're wrong? ;-) And, the only thing you could do is point
out that I misunderstood one sentence? :-) LOL!
Yeah, like I said before, this is FUN!
Curtis
On 2/2/08, tralfamidorgooglycr
wrote:
> > You wrote: "The key concept is that the deadline on the
> > ticket is NOT, repeat NOT, a contract. The wagering transaction
> > occurs before the customer reads the resulting ticket (which
> > is only a receipt, NOT a contract). The only way that the time
> > restriction would be valid is if it were EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED
> > to the customer BEFORE the wager was placed and accepted.
> > A material condition of a contract that is not spelled out at the
> > time the contract is made is VOID."
> >
> > My replies:
> > 1) First you state that the ticket is a receipt, NOT a contract.
> > But, then you go on to state that the "contract" is void because
> > a material condition of the "contract" was not spelled out at the
> > time the "contract" was made.
>
> Yo Curtis buddy,
>
> OK, I'll SPELL IT OUT. Yes indeedy, I did state that the TICKET (and
> therefore anything printed on it) is a RECEIPT, not a contract.
> The "contract" I was referring to was the contract THAT INVOLVED THE
> CASINO'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE WAGER, i.e., the physical transaction and
> the recording by the casino of the amount and type of the bet. This
> contract exists independent of the ticket. Furthermore, I did not
> state that a CONTRACT is void when a material condition is not
> explicitly spelled out, only that THAT MATERIAL CONDITION IS VOID.
> So the wager stands, as does the casino's obligation to pay it, but
> the time restriction is invalid. Q.E.D.
>
> In the future, feel free to disagree or criticize, but please try to
> restrict those disagreements or criticisms to things that I actually
> SAID.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
