Dec 19, 2017 -- 7:00AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
"If 365 win they could be opening a can of worms, how many people have put a bet on for someone else on their account. Would this leave us all able to claim that money back."This a pretty daft arguement. There is a big difference between putting a bet on with a credit card or sticking your wife's tenner on for the sake of convenience and paying someone unconnected you to set up an account for you to fund and place bets to get around the fact that they would not allow you to set up and bet on your own account. The court can differentiate between different scenarios. If I took out an insurance policy on my vehicle saying I only drove 3,000 miles a year and I knew I'd driven 100,000 miles the last few years and I likely would again a court is highly likely to find me in breach pf contract and side with the insurance company on not paying out. That doesn't mean they are saying everybody who has ever underestimated their mileage and driven over the estimated mileage would be in breach of contract for their policies. And it certainly doesn't mean they would all be entitled to a refund.
Why is this a daft argument ??
If they lay down a set of t&c and the customer agrees,then those t&c would still apply whether the amount was 25k or 1 pence, the t&c are to protect both parties.
£3.65 defence must be relying on the fair use condition 3.2 & 3.3
3.2 You must not use the Website for the benefit of a third party or for any purpose which (in bet365’s opinion) is illegal, defamatory, abusive or obscene, or which bet365 considers discriminatory, fraudulent, dishonest or inappropriate.
3.3 bet365 will seek criminal and contractual sanctions against any customer involved in fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts via or in connection with the Website or bet365's products. bet365 will withhold payment to any customer where any of these are suspected or where the payment is suspected to be for the benefit of a third party. The customer shall indemnify and shall be liable to pay to bet365, on demand, all Claims (as defined in paragraph B.4.3 above) arising directly or indirectly from the customer’s fraudulent, dishonest or criminal act.
Dec 19, 2017 -- 7:54AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
"Why is this a daft argument ??"For the reason I've stated. It's nothing to do with 1 pence or 25,000. If the girl acted as a proxy for the real bettor for the purpose of deliberately deceiving 365 in to contracting with this person when 365 wouldn't have otherwise done so then that's a massively different scenario than someone placing an occasional bet for a partner or friend for the sake of convenience or because they were short of money. This is the part they are likely to use. 4.2(c)" if your account is being used for the benefit of a third party;"
Wrong 4.2 refers to Software and Technology Issues
So your argument is that we will have a set of T&c that don't allow you to benefit a third party but because it's only a £1 for my gran it don't matter, contract law don't work like that.
Dec 19, 2017 -- 7:59AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
Your wrong YDNA she is the one pursuing 365 for breach of contract in court. They have simply said we are not paying because you breached the contract. It is her pursuing the case though.
Yes but £3.65 would still need to prove why they consider she has breached their t&c
Dec 19, 2017 -- 8:19AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
https://help.bet365.com/en/terms-and-conditionsIt certainly doesn't on what I'm looking at. It certainly does. A court will often look behind the purpose of a particular term to determine whether that is a fair term or not. Any person or business is entitled to decide who they contract with and to have conditions which invalidate contracts entered in to by a proxy that they would not have otherwise contracted with. The court could clearly consider that this term was fair if used for the purpose of not being bound by a contract they wouldn't have otherwise entered in to. I highly doubt they would find it fair for them to rely on the term to invalidate a contract for a bet which someones grandma asked them to put on for the simple convenience of her not going to have the hassle of setting up an account as it would be clear that was not the purpose the term was set out to prevent. The Intention of the parties matters a lot in contract law to interpret a contract. You don't seem capable of understanding that there are different degrees and that a court will differentiate between different scenarios. This happens all the time. If I take out a 5,000 loan and give the bird a couple hundred pound to repair her car rather than her having to take out a separate loan I highly doubt any court would consider that as breach of contract. If my mate from down the pub can't get credit then says he will pay me to take out a loan in my name and give it to him then I would almost certainly be breaching the loan contract because I am merely a guarantor and I am deliberately deceiving the bank knowing that if I told them the truth they may not contract with me.
Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder
Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the time
Dec 19, 2017 -- 8:40AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
Ridiculous examples, i think you have been watching way too Judge Rinder Ok link me a case law, that should not be difficult if as you say happens all the timeYou want to tell my why? I'm not going to spend time looking for a relevant case for someone who thinks a court doesn't taken in to account whether a party to a contract deliberately deceived the other party in to entering a contract with them by using a proxy. "Yes but £3.65 would still need to prove why they consider she has breached their t&c"Not the case again. Their skeletal argument would have to address any controversial issues before the matter even went to trial. They'd be pretty daft to either not address 365's position in it or to perjur themselves.
Well you did say that it happens all the time so it should not have taken to much time to find an example, so you have no proof it happens all the time it's just your opinion.
The lawyer who is acting for her, who incidentally fought and won the Curley case against baldy would disagree with your opinion that it's a daft argument.
Dec 20, 2017 -- 2:24PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
To find an example of what? Two different cases which a court distinguishes between a term being fair and unfair depending whether it's purpose is to prevent a person from deceiving them in to contracting with them or not?I'll pass thanks. I suspect even if I did you'd just reply with "ridiculous example" whilst refusing to elaborate further. The lawyer acting for Bet365 and the others acting for other bookmakers, online casinos, lotteries that drafted these terms and conditions do think it's a daft agrument.Care to have a bet on whether if the court finds in favour of 365 the court will say everybody who's placed a bet for someone else, with a credit card or through a syndicate is entitled to contact their bookie, online casino or the lottery requesting a refund?
You claimed it happens all the time, how do you know it happens all the time when you can't even give me one example of when it has happened before, fact is you don't know it happens all the time, it was bull, your even now trying to guess my replies
This will get settled out of court in the end just like it did with baldy, three pound sixty five are just playing the long game, it wouldn't surprise me if you worked for this shower of 5hit.
Mar 24, 2018 -- 6:48AM, gnashersblackpool wrote:
bookie near certain to win. most/all the case will be thrown out.
Superb insight, case closed.