>
> 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.
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
__,_._,___
