ah, that age-old internet favourite: people who aren't lawyers arguing about law. amazed you've all got this far without anyone using the words "invitation to treat".

since you ask, my instinct tells me that they'll have worded their small print very carefully to cover themselves against a bet placed through the website automatically becoming a binding contract at the time it was struck. and that any legal action attempting to force them to pay up would ultimately fail unless the person bringing it could raise some element of doubt that the price was mistaken.

otherwise all firms however large would run the constant risk of being bankrupted by a single typo, which is patently absurd and unsustainable.

but I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? night all.

How come I havent heard of any cases that have gone to court then if its such an open and shut case for the prosecution. I will immediately write a scruffy betting slip out with loads of prices during the rush at the counter, get the cashier to sign for them and then count my cash when she has accidentally signed for a wrong price.
Earnest with all your knowledge why dont you advertise for clients who have gotten on wrong prices like the Opening Poster and for a percentage you guarantee them a day in court and  winning result.

The terms and conditions that people agree to with firms,  where they reserve the right to correct palpable errors covers them. its simple.
Or have you not checked each firms terms and conditions ?

There are reasons I don't offer to run people's cases for them Pounf:

- I am not legally qualified so would not be allwoed to charge.

- Most cases like this one are only really viable as a small claim run by the punter himself.

- There are commercial reasons why it would not be worth my time.


Nevertheless, I am confident that if somebody argued the right case they would win, though I am even more certain they would recieve a full payout before it ever got to a court.

There are a couple of recurring themes in posts about this issue and it is worth responding to them here.

One is that people seem to assume that because large scale betting firms have this palpable error rule hidden in their terms and conditions, that it must be watertight legally.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This palpable error rule was in existance before the Gambling Act 2005 came into force.  It is my belief that it relied for its power upon the fact that gambling debts were not legally enforceable before the current Act came into being.  That is, the betting firms could make up any ludicrous conditions they wanted and hide behind them because there was no way to force them to pay up on winnings bets anyway.

The palpable error rule has never to my knowledge been tested in any cases.  I am certain there are many hidden terms and conditions constantly being found not to be operative in contracts in many industries because they are found to be unfair.  The mere fact a punter has clicked that he has read and agreed to the terms and conditions does not mean that those conditions do not have to pass the legal tests for fairness to be found to be operative in a contract.  Otherwise of course, Laddies or whoever could hide a condition in there that as soon as you place a bet with them they own your house, and then come and evict you whilst refusing to pay you your winnings into the bargain.  THE CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE FAIR, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU HAVE AGREED TO THEM OR NOT.  Anyone who thinks it through properly should realise that.

Is the palpable error rule fair?

My answer is no, for the reasons given in my earlier posts.  This is not an authoritative legal opinion, just my opinion, based on what I know of the law and betting.  the rule is not clearly defined, it onerous to only one party and beneficial to only one party, it is not clearly stated on betting slips, but hidden away, the decision to implement the rule is judged only by the party who benefits from it....I am sure there are many more ways it is not fair.

How can it be made more fair?

Well, clearly define it for a start.  If a price is more than x% out from the industry price it is a palpable error and the bet should be voided regardless of the result.  This % should be quite high, perhaps 100% difference, but perhaps if it produces a payout of over £10,000.00 difference it can also be enforced.

Have the fairly worded rule highlighted on every betting ticket, not hidden deep in terms and conditions.

Have it protect both the punter and the bookmaker, ie if a punter takes a price more than x% under the industry average, or results in a payout difference of £10,000.00 or more, then this bet should also be voided.

If bookmakers did these things, the rule would certainly be more fair than it is now.

What else can bookmakers do?

The other theme that seems to recur on these threads is that bookmakers will or could be bankrupted by the errors of their staff if held to the bets taken in error at extravagent prices.

Bookmakers can have printed and highlighted on tickets that liability for bets up to £x is the maximum that can be accepted by a front line employee, larger bets have to be checked by a more senior employee before they bind the firm.  This might go some way to allaying people's fears of bookmakers going bankrupt on one unchecked error.  I'm sure people can think of better ways to get the same effect, but this gives you an idea.

If the bookmakers' own systems and hierarchies leave them open to being bankrupted on one typo, then guess what?  They deserve to be bankrupted.

It is a terrible shame that someone hasn't driven a truck through this unfair rule properly as yet, but I am sure it will happen one day.  Perhaps a bookmaker will be foolish enough to declare one of Deadly Earnest's winning bets a palpable error.  If the bet was large enough to justify the fight, I would definitely give it a decent go.

Stop defending the indefensible.  A punter deserves to know with certainty where he stands after making a bet.  It is within the scope of bookmakers to alter their terms and systems to provide that certainty.

Turtles - I think you could argue till you`re blue in the face - not a good look for a Gooner - Deadly wont have it. Methinks theres a barrack room lawyer situation here, when a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Having the bookies rules printed on ever ticket ? Theres normally a huge poster on the wall with the rules on, how big does he want betting slips to be ? Ridiculous solution, most people dont read them anyway.

To me its just common sense that the bookies protect themselves in this way, what is wrong is when its abused.

Have you written it out on a betting slip or is it on a printed coupon?

Ive written it out on a betting slip i also asked the cashier for the prices, i do the draw no bet thing because about 20%of the time ill get paid for a win if a draw comes in. . .

What about the rules regarding which dog tracks you can bet at, or limits to winnings on various sports, or rules regarding overtime or extra time etc etc

Bridge - so you`ve asked for Draw no bet and the incorrect price has been put on. Think its a bit slippery but if you get away with it good luck to you. Dont think you have much argument if the bet ends up being settled correctly.

Any rules they seek to rely upon in that event, that are not an obvious part of your bargain with them should be on the ticket Pounf, why not?  There are surely only 2 required to protect them from either their own mistakes, or being "bankrupted" by one slip of the pen:

- The palp rule, and

- The limit that can be taken by a front line operator.

Anything else is just small change isn't it?

If the error costs below the cashiers limit, it should be paid out, because the cashier is trusted to that extent.

If the error is worth more than the cashier's limit, and the cashier's limit is made clear to the punter, then I would not have an issue with the bet being either voided or paid out at the cashier's limit.

I am not looking for a deck stacked in favour of punters, just a fair system.  The palpable error rule, as it stands, is grossly unfair to the punter, as we see in this case, he does not know where he stands, that is not acceptable in any contract, you need certainty.

To make it clear Pounf, as things stand, the shop should be made to pay it out in full.

What I am saying about the cashier's limit is that a figure SHOULD be printed ON THE TICKET CLEARLY that limits liability to the cashier's limit(ie some lowish figure that would not "bankrupt" the firm) except where the bet is checked with another more senior employee.   

As things stand, if a martian walks into a betting shop, places a bet on something at 11/8, what is there to say he is aware of the palpable error rule at that time?  He has simply made a bargain with the person apparently in charge of taking bets for the firm, the law should care less whether the firm has a bad bargain.

Further, do YOU think the palpable error rule is fair, such that it would pass the tests of fairness under unfair contract terms legislation?  And do you think it is fair full stop?

Hardly difficult to put every bet worth over £2k or whatever on a different type of contract, with about 2 stipulations printed on it and even ask the punter to sign, rather than your average betting slip.  Anything under that is not going to bankrupt anyone so doesn't matter.  These things are not difficult pounf, they are EASY.

Guys this arguments going round in circles, imo pounf is totally correct i wish de was right but hes not imo. . ..

Are you an imbecile ? Do you think I would argue for something if I didnt think it was fair ???

Nobody puts out palpable errors deliberately. To force companies to honour such things is ridiculous and would open up all sorts of fraud possibilities. Its there in the terms and conditions to protect both parties, though as Ive said mainly to protect Bookmakers. When its abused that is scandalous, but generally it isnt.
Most of these things are data input errors, missing the decimal point, getting the names transposed ie human error. In the ideal world they wouldnt take place, but they do, and Bookmakers want a clause to cover themselves for such errors. Its totally undertsandable.

You admit that if a palpable error is made that shortchanges the customer it should be put right. So I dont see why you keep trying to justify that it shouldnt be the same the other way.

It is a shame I don't have more time on my hands, I would take on the case of the o/p, or any similar case with a winning ticket, and bet plenty with any of you that I would get the ticket paid out in full.  I will be soon arriving on your shores so it would have tied in nicely.

Alas, I will be too busy.

In fact, for all the time spent arguing on here, we may as well have a crack at one of these.  The company in question did not pay their fair share towards the Deadly Earnest retirement fund when I was able to bet with them, so they are fair game.

If the opening poster wants to contact me, my email address is deadlyearnest@hotmail.co.uk, we will see what we can do about collecting on the bet, at no cost to you, and publish the results here. 

In the event that philBWFC takes up my offer, I will bet Pounf or anyone else who cares to take a well intentioned wager(funds to a good cause, that type of thing) that we collect the bet in full.

Over to you PhilBWFC, you've opened a can of worms here mate. 


Will you and others actually back the bookmakers and the palpable error rule with your reputations and cash Pounf?

Go for it Deadly, we`re all right behind you in this glorious quest (in a kind of observational way), but you must give us a blow by blow account of what happens.

Good Luck.

Yes, you've summed up the situation perfectly there jt, getting the £330 paid in full should not be difficult to do.  Of course, whilst getting this ticket paid out in full is unlikely to land a knockout blow on the palpable error rule, we might just give it a little black eye.  It would be nice to establish a path that others could follow if they so chose to collect on winning bets in similar situations.

It is probably of little value to me as an individual to blow the palp rule out of the h2o because I can't bet with any of the bookmakers who apply it, not to any significant stakes anyway.  I just think the rule is unfair in its current format, for the reasons I have given on this thread. And I think the law courts would find it to be unfair.  I have no problem with the notion of bookmakers having safeguards in place to ensure staff errors don't cost them collateral amounts.  This is just not the right solution and I suspect the rule has even been used as a sword rather than a shield at times by unscrupulous bookmakers, at the expense of  perfectly honest punters. 

It is absolutely open to bookmaking firms to improve their systems for taking bets, we should never overlook that.

I suppose what might be good is if there was a bigger case, say well into the tens of thousands of pounds at stake.  I doubt even then any of the main firms would want to defend a case in court, for fear of an inconvenient precedent being set.  In such a case I am sure we could find a few larger scale punters aorund town to chip in for a decent legal represetation.  I would be happy to throw my weight and a bit of my cash behind such a case.

Are you sure the bet is not subject to UK law gb?