Will cheeky get his 5k from weareskint

[bookworm]

she offered her honour,,,he honoured her offer and all night long he was honour and offer ,,,,,,,,,, sorry.:D

[Yukon]

A bet is not a contract.

 

Yes they are- Gambling Act 2005. Christ don't give up, the day job to become a lawyer

[Memphis]

Cheeky dunner need the money.

 

He's tighter than a nun's chuff that boy.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

But if he'd lost I'll bet he would have paid up his stake money

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Bloke goes into the butchers where there are lods of joints of meat hanging above the counter on hooks

 

"I'll bet you £10 you can't reach them" says the butcher to the bloke

 

"No thanks" says the bloke

 

"Alright £50" says the butcher

 

"No thanks" says the bloke

 

"Alright if you can reach them I'll give you £250 and of you can't you just owe me a tenner" says the butcher

 

"No thanks" says the bloke

 

"Why not?" asks the butcher

 

"The steaks are just too high for me" says our man

[Regal Beagle]

Yes it is. It was previously a gentlemen's agreement but changed to a legal contract with the launch of the gambling commission.

 

Negative.

 

The transaction is a contract, the bet isn't.

[Regal Beagle]

He offered the bet' date=' the four of us accepted HIS offer.[/quote']

 

Not at all. He proposed the bet, you offered the bet, there was no acceptance.

 

I'm a big advocate of bets being honoured, but when a bet has not been agreed it's not a bet. Simple as that.

[Regal Beagle]

No in English law a contract is formed on the basis of offer and acceptance. weareskint made an offer, cheeky and a few others accepted. A contract was therefore formed, which if cheeky wanted to he could enforce.

 

That said I think this light hearted thread has run its course.

 

I love all these bookies and lawyers on here.

 

A contract can not be vague (was stake agreed - no, was a time frame agreed - no)

 

And it must show intention to create legal relations.

[Yukon]

I love all these bookies and lawyers on here.

 

A contract can not be vague (was stake agreed - no, was a time frame agreed - no)

 

And it must show intention to create legal relations.

 

Just because you've parodied the Legal Begal's name!

 

WSAWKWA showed his intention by offering odds and saying he'd give them and he was taken up on it.

 

Google carbolic smoke balls and complete your internet legal education

[Regal Beagle]

Yes they are- Gambling Act 2005. Christ don't give up, the day job to become a lawyer

 

I'm sure you'll be able to correct me but doesn't the GA2005 apply to licensed operations?

 

Also I'm not totally convinced that it sets out provisions for wagers to be paid out as won. Only that they can be made void.

 

The transaction is a wager. And unless there was something crazy like both parties agreed to solicitors witnessing a bet being placed and

expressly agreed to it being legally binding then I don't believe a bookmaker can be liable for winnings in a court.

 

 

Obviously forgetting all the contract law that shows quite clearly that this is not a contract, else that would be boring.

[Regal Beagle]

Just because you've parodied the Legal Begal's name!

 

WSAWKWA showed his intention by offering odds and saying he'd give them and he was taken up on it.

 

Google carbolic smoke balls and complete your internet legal education

 

I don't need to google the Carbolic Smoke Balls Co case.

 

If you love the law and google so much why don't you look at any other area of contract law and you'll see exactly where this falls flat on its face.

 

 

Whilst the internet came in really helpful during my Law degree I don't think you can give it complete credit.

[Andyregs]

Whilst its obvious Regal Beagle is right and its never a proper bet, its also obvious that the thread is a **** take at someone who gave it billy big balls and made an ass of himself. Who gives a toss if it was a legally enforceable bet.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What was priceless was that weareskint felt the need to come on and go on about it not being binding, show me the bookies that does this, the 10K bet on Smurf etc etc..

 

Anyone with a commercial brain would have seen it as an opportunity to make some dosh or at least protecting him/herself by offsetting the bet. Not very good marketing of himself by Wearskint. Some sever rebranding required ;)

[Burt]

40m to 200bn :cool:

 

Thanks for pointing that out and highlighting them, melv - we'd all missed it!!

[Yukon]

Whilst its obvious Regal Beagle is right and its never a proper bet, its also obvious that the thread is a **** take at someone who gave it billy big balls and made an ass of himself. Who gives a toss if it was a legally enforceable bet.

 

Must you live so persistently in the real world!?! Good points though