Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
26 Apr 20
14:19
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 12
NAMED AND SHAMED. 
A key question answered by the courts was whether rock paper scissors was a game of chance or a game of skill.
What's the most you'd bet on a game of rock, paper, scissors?
A man who bet big in a best-of-three game of rock, paper, scissors has been saved from his debts by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Edmund Mark Hooper owed $517,000 (£296,000) after losing to Michel Primeau in January 2011 and was forced to remortgage his home to meet the costs, but the court has now written off his debts.
According to Quebec law, any contract for a bet requires the wager to be based on an activity "requiring only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties" and not simply chance.
Furthermore, the bet must not be for an excessive amount.
So, the court of appeal had to decide whether rock paper scissors was a game of luck or skill.
The original 2017 judgement by Justice Chantal Chatelain ruled that rock paper scissors could ''in certain precise circumstances, call upon the skill of the parties, particularly in the speed of execution, the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence''.
But Justice Chatelain ruled that the size of the bet was too excessive, finding the contract was therefore invalid.
The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision.
A key question answered by the courts was whether rock paper scissors was a game of chance or a game of skill.
What's the most you'd bet on a game of rock, paper, scissors?
A man who bet big in a best-of-three game of rock, paper, scissors has been saved from his debts by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Edmund Mark Hooper owed $517,000 (£296,000) after losing to Michel Primeau in January 2011 and was forced to remortgage his home to meet the costs, but the court has now written off his debts.
According to Quebec law, any contract for a bet requires the wager to be based on an activity "requiring only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties" and not simply chance.
Furthermore, the bet must not be for an excessive amount.
So, the court of appeal had to decide whether rock paper scissors was a game of luck or skill.
The original 2017 judgement by Justice Chantal Chatelain ruled that rock paper scissors could ''in certain precise circumstances, call upon the skill of the parties, particularly in the speed of execution, the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence''.
But Justice Chatelain ruled that the size of the bet was too excessive, finding the contract was therefore invalid.
The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision.
Show More
The loser was a lucky man imo
What if he had won, I am sure he would have been expecting to be paid out
What if he had won, I am sure he would have been expecting to be paid out
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539