Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
IDKW
15 Dec 14 17:37
Joined:
Date Joined: 19 Nov 09
| Topic/replies: 2,519 | Blogger: IDKW's blog
Not much on the Horse Racing forum so thought I'd try here

I feel pretty sure this must have been debated previously, but wondering if there is anyone with a legal background who can give a definitive interpretation of the Gambling Act's licensing objectives

1 (b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way

My interpretation of FAIR;
Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination

OPEN;
Freely available or accessible
Unrestricted

Clearly my own interpretations mean that ALL so called Bookmakers are in breach of the terms of their licence. However, when enquiring with the Gambling Commission, they have a completely differing view.................and go on to quote the Sale of Goods Act...........invitation to treat
ie, that no Bookmaker is obliged to transact with any customer should they not wish to.

Do we just accept The Gambling Commission's view?
Or is there some Legal Challenge to the way in which Bookmakers operate?
Pause Switch to Standard View Gambling Act 2005 - any legal brains...
Show More
Loading...
Report hectoratoratora December 16, 2014 4:07 PM GMT
Dont waste your time ,the GC is 100% correct.In brief for there to be a legally binding contract there must be offer and acceptance ,ie the punter makes the offer and the bookie decides if he wants to accept it or not.Bookies advertised prices are merely an offer to treat ie an invitation to the punter to make an offer ,which the bookmaker has  absolute discretion to accept/decline.
The law will not change any time soon because this notion is one of the cornerstones of English law. Its far more significant than the relationship between punters and bookmakers ,its the basis for ALL contacts.There are no exceptions.
You have ZERO chance of changing a cast iron situation.
Report Nebs December 30, 2014 12:42 AM GMT
But what of the bookmaker who offers 3/1, and you go up to them and ask for £100 and get offered £10, then the next customer asks for £100 and gets the lot. That cannot be fair.
Report no moves December 30, 2014 1:15 AM GMT
Surely there must be some consumer law to ensure to customers aren't deliberately decieved, Hector.


You suggestion seems to give leave to the idea a shop can deliberately display innacurate prices in order to attract custom.
Report hectoratoratora December 30, 2014 3:03 PM GMT
Fair has nothing to do with it.Its what the law is.Remember the quote "the law is an ass",this is an example,but its still the law.
Report cornubia December 31, 2014 11:26 PM GMT
The Gambling Commission do not have staff expert in betting or the law.
They are administrators only.

They get their interpretation of the Act from consulting with the leading bookmakers.
They do what they tell them as bookmakers are their main funders.

They have not answered your question on Fair and Open" correctly.
They have dodged the issue entirely and have gone onto something else entirely which is contract law.
The Gambling Act already incorporates existing contract laws.
The Gambling Act gives the GC duties above and beyond Contract law and Parliament expects GC to enforce the Act but it does not.

Are the bookmakers terms and conditions fair, open and equitable or do they favour one party to the disdvantage of the other party?
That is what they have to decide but they never even look at the one sided conditions bookmakers impose.
Unfair tems and conditions are void in law.

The EU have confirmed this by later legislation on unfair terms.
1.Making the arrangement legally binding on you, but not on the supplier.
2.Allowing the supplier to retain money in the event that you cancel, but not obliging the supplier to pay compensation in the event that they cancel.
4.Allowing the supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis, without giving you the same right.
5.Allowing the supplier to cancel the contract without reasonable notice to you.
7.Incorporating legally binding contractual terms without giving you reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them before signing.
8.Allowing the seller to alter the terms of the contract without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.
9.Allowing the supplier to determine the price at the time of delivery, or significantly increasing the price without giving you the chance to cancel.
10.Giving the supplier the right to determine whether the goods you receive are as described or allowing him to interpret contractual terms as he sees fit.
11.Legally obliging you to fulfil your obligations, while not obliging the supplier to fulfil his.
12.Allowing the seller to transfer his rights and obligations if it affects any product guarantees you may have with him.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and other legislation. In a nutshell, this piece of legislation protects consumers who enter into legally binding agreements with suppliers (bookmakers) where the contract is biased in favour of the supplier.

Bookmakers are not allowed by law to void bets but they do.
Bookmakers are not allowed by law to claim "palpable error". Once a bet is made then it is payable in full by law.
Not some arbirtary decison of a clerk.
Once a bet is made the bookmaker cannot in law claim the bet is partly or wholly void because of some related contingency claim.
Many of the related contingency claims are figments of their imagination, in any case.

Refusing the same bet to all punters is legal.
Refusing a bet but allowing another person the same bet could be challenged as discrimination if the person refused is another race, religion or sexual orientation.
The bookmaker would have to convince the Court otherwise.
They are on very slippery ground here.

The GC do not carry out their prime duty to enforce the Gambling Act in this area of fairness in the slightest.
Report hectoratoratora January 1, 2015 5:01 PM GMT
There has to be a contract for the UCTA 1977 to be relevant.At the risk of stating the bleedin obvious if the bookmaker knocks you back ,there is no contract so the the UCTA 1977 cant apply.QED.
Report cornubia January 2, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
You are completely wrong.
There is a contract between the bookmaker and the punter, and the bookmaker provides a slip to prove it and has to post on the wall the terms and conditions that contract is made under. The GC response recognises the contract exists.
What makes a contract?
In extremely simple terms, the elements that a court will look for when deciding if a contract is legally binding are an offer, acceptance, the intention to create legal relations, and consideration. That all happens every single time a bet is made.
Report hectoratoratora January 2, 2015 7:19 AM GMT
When a bookmaker does not take a punters bet there is NO contract,is that too difficult to grasp ?
Sorry you dont like my advice ,but that is the position.
Report G1_Jockey_4 January 18, 2015 6:18 PM GMT
time to start naming and shaming like the ****s who cant even pay minimum wage.

bad publicity is the only way to hurt these ****s
Report Paul Haigh - Total Respect January 22, 2015 4:06 PM GMT
@cornubia

I'd very much like to make contact with you.

Could you drop me a line at this email address please?

betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com