There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 99 comments are related to the topic:
Voler La Vedette thread gone?
Voler La Vedette thread gone?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 99
|
By:
There is no case to answer it was a software error and you lost nothing there fore nothing to claim, end of story
|
|
By:
you keep saying it's end of story
nothing more to say so go away  |
|
By:
If it goes to court most of those who lost out will be able to hold up their lifetime account statement and say "if you think the odds about VLV were unbelievable take a look at this".
|
|
By:
IBAS appear to have decided the amount is more important than the actions. With this ruling black is black but in future black could be white or grey depending on how much is involved.
By suggesting it would cost Betfair £23m it seems to imply they think all bets on here are commission and Premium Charge free! |
|
By:
IBAS were always going to find in favour of Betfair. The matter must go to court if there is to be any chance of the truth being revealed.
|
|
By:
IBAS "the huge sums involved"
So what they are saying is the more a betting firm refuses to pay you the more right it is!!  |
|
By:
Just a point form someone not involved but clued up on litigation (Though not qualified)
The IBAS ruling is a massive setback as, both parties have agreed to abide by IBAS as an Independant Arbitrator. However, from just reading the snippets I have, it would seem that IBAS have admitted they have no legal knowledge and as such it is a weak ruling as your arguements are basically about contract law. What is interesting is, if someone did sue Betfair, they could put in a request for further information which could include a request for the account details of the account that did the transaction. A judge could also deem this persons testimony as essential to the case and issue a summons for his/her attendance to be cross examined by any claimant. If anyone would care to email me the ruling to edrpool at yahoo co uk I would happily look at it. |
|
By:
An IBAS decison is not legally binding. If it were, nobody would have bothered wasting their time with them.
They have even mentioned things like "if the £600m had all been matched....". It wasn't. They should only be making decisions on what actually happened. They may as well say "if a punter hadn't backed this horse" or "if the football team hadn't won" or "if it had been a different jockey it might not have won". I wasn't expecting much from IBAS but am genuinely shocked how poor their letter is. It defies belief that they think they are capable of making decisions in cases where lots of money is at stake. Personally I'd take my chances with a set of chimpanzees next time. |
|
By:
Could've been worse Rollo. The GC would have adjudicated on it but not informed anyone of their decision. At best they would've spell checked "Fk off".
|
|
By:
What "truth" do you think will be revealed in court?
Betfair have already told anyone who had a bet at 29.0 that the counterparty had £700 in his account. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
the mover - If a full technical report revealed how to louse-up the site via a technical glitch, then their reticence is justified. Don't you beleive them? Do you think a user risked £600 million in this instance?
|
|
By:
In their letter there is no mention that I could request the adjudication be reviewed.
In the Racing Post today IBAS managing director Richard Hayler is quoted as saying: "As with every IBAS case either party is entitled to request that the adjudication be reviewed" So we have to buy a newspaper? Why is that not in the letter? Enough said about IBAS.... |
|
By:
I find it totally implausible that a customer is able to bypass all of Betfair's systems and submit a phantom £600m bet. A far more plausible explanation would be that one of Betfair's in house trading bots operating without a limit had malfunctioned.
The fine details of what actually happened and how active Betfair are in their own markets will only be revealed in a court of law, imvho. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I guess it will be decided in court. IBAS are hopeless anyway.
|
|
By:
As I said prior under a different guise,. no one is saying IBAS is legally binding however, if it did go to court, you would be up against a judge who probably had £1 EW on the National. He would put alot of weight onto an INDEPENDANT (We know it isnt but the judge doesnt) ARBITRATIONS findings. It would be deemed as expert witness testimony and it is also, as per the terms and conditions, one that you have agreed to abide by.
Personally I think anyone who sues WHO HASNT gone to IBAS are in alot stronger position than anyone who has. |
|
By:
He (a judge) would put alot of weight onto an INDEPENDANT (We know it isnt but the judge doesnt) ARBITRATIONS findings. It would be deemed as expert witness testimony and it is also, as per the terms and conditions, one that you have agreed to abide by.
First of all, presumably a jury would decide not a judge (?), and secondly are you aware that IBAS place no weight on the law in coming to a decision? They also explicitly state in the report that they have no knowledge of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and whether Betfair's terms are indeed fair. So would a judge place any weight on this independent arbitrator? A categorical no. He will be far more interested in doing his job ie that of applying the law of England ..... As for suggesting customers have "agreed to abide by" Betfair's TC's, that sounds awfully similar to the confession that IBAS made this weekend - that they have never heard of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. |
|
By:
Jesus, A JURY
I stopped reading the rest of your post after that. |
|
By:
ibas will rule who ever pays them enough just remember if you gamble its bent expect no diffrent
|