> 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
>
Well, in the midst of all your LOLing, and the great fun you seem to
be having, I almost hate to point out that you misread my post YET
AGAIN.
LOL.
I never expressed the idea that casinos "do not inform their
customers"..
RECEIPT that did not have the force of contract because it was
tendered to the customer AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS AGREED TO, AND ONE
OF THE PARTIES HAD EXECUTED HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT (the bettor had
handed over his money). The question of whether a given sportsbook
does an adequate job of informing its customers is moot; I'm sure
that varies from book to book, but I personally have NEVER been told
face to face that my sports betting ticket had to be cashed within a
certain period of time, and such an EXPLICIT EXPLANATION of a
crucial part of the contract is necessary, in US commercial law, to
make that provision of the contract valid.
Re: what you would or would not have done: an unreasonable clause in
a contract is also void. So is one not spelled out at the time the
contract is made. The 60-day clause fails both tests. You, or anyone
else, are protected from such contract provisions by contract law.
Whether you wish to waive this protection is up to you, HOWEVER,
I'll make a wild surmise that if we moved out of the realm of the
theoretical and into the real world, and you had been shafted for
three actual thousand dollars, you wouldn't be so acquiescent.
Re: if you owned a casino: I would hope that you would have the good
sense to pay the ticket.
Re: "Right and wrong": well, I'm sick of this argument, as I can't
believe that you, or anyone else, could possibly be defending the
casino on this issue. Theft and fraud are, uh, WRONG-- even
PERFECTLY LEGAL theft and fraud, so the legal discussions are
somewhat beside the point.
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
__,_._,___
