365 v student
|
By:
she will have to prove she had the money to place the bet.
assuming she will be asked to provide bank statements. |
|
By:
Sofiakenny , they don't have to be bothered where the money came from their rules cover them
|
|
By:
As it's £3.65 claiming breach of contract i think you will find that the onus is upon £3.65 to prove why they consider it was not her money
|
|
By:
"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;" |
|
By:
3.2 You must not use the Website for the benefit of a third party or for any purpose which ([b]in bet365’s opinion) is illegal, defamatory, abusive or obscene, or which bet365 considers discriminatory, fraudulent, dishonest or inappropriate.[/b]
That is as clear an unfair term as you could wish to see. It basically states that bet365's opinion is all that matters which obviously gives them too much power. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
She or whoever, has no chance whatsoever, and the chances of 365 settling with them is zero. They are hardly going to get all this bad publicity and then pay up. No doubt in the world , they are in it for the long haul , and that spells big trouble for the tower brigade.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
https://help.bet365.com/en/terms-and-conditions
It 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. |
|
By:
Bet365 wont allow me to bet antepost offering nothing on anything i ask for since a couple of antepost wins over 10 years ago.
There’s greed and then there’s Bet365 greed.... Online gambling giant bet365 has seen its revenue increase to a whopping £2.15 billion over the last 12 months. The company’s accounts, for the year up to March 26, show the Etruria firm's turnover grew from £1.65 billion last year. It also increased operating profit from £456 million to £503 million and pre-tax profit rose from £459 million to £514 million. In addition, bet365’s customers wagered more than £46.9 billion in bets within the 12 months – up by more than £10 million for the same period in 2016. |
|
By:
None of this is going into racing, pure greedy vermin without a soul.
|
|
By:
Yes that’s over half a billion profit each year. Their customers wager far more than the cost of us leaving the EU every year. Doubt there will be one winning account with them now, vermin.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Let them be vermin , but they wouldn’t touch the crowd from the towers. A truly despicable outfit.
|
|
By:
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 You 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. |
|
By:
Similarly had an antepost win around 10 years ago with Paddy Power who now limit me to £200 antepost. At least they let you get enough on to not fall asleep during the race.
If it was them maybe a similar limit would be in order? |
|
By:
Except the government should enforce the linits to EVERY ACCOUNT including those of Premiership footballers, cricketers and snooker players.
|
|
By:
Paddy Power the worst of the lot.
Betting with them over 6 years only up about £3,000 in total. Did a top scorer bet for £20 I think, offer was free £2 bet every time they scored. After 3 months or so the player wasn't going to win it. They then restricted my account, no bog, offers, etc etc and stopped the £2 free bets if he scored, even though the bet was struck before my account was restricted. They wouldn't cancel the original bet either  So they could say bet £100 on top scorer (worse odds than other bookies) and get a free £10 bet for every goal. Then restrict your account straight away and not pay out free bets or refund original bet. The biggest welchers out there. |
|
By:
So if it is a Power employee I hope the don't get a penny. Cause they certainly wouldn't pay out.
|
|
By:
I agree with maleuk01 if it is a PP trader.
|
|
By:
really want them to win the case against bet365 people should wake up it's a war out there and bookmakers don't take no prisoners so i would say to punters make sure you don't as well
|
|
By:
They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or some other serious scenario but if its just a 3rd part funds they wont win because it opens up a serious can of worms about placing bets for 3rd parties as we have all done and the refunding of them if they win cost them far more and you will have law firms on the tv advertising if you ever placed a bet for a 3rd party claim now lol
|
|
By:
why doesn't it matter the bet was flagged, moved to PTL and then authorised? They had every chance to decline the transaction, they accepted her KYC on opening her ac and depositing. If they were unhappy with KYC profile and deposit that was the time to suspend the ac, the Judge should note the safeguarding and duty of care bypass and send it to whichever toothless quango can fine them £15 million customer welfare neglect, failure to KYC and satisfy money laundering issues and bringing bookmaking into disrepute because it never intended honouring an authorised wager and was going to keep the stake whatever the outcome of the races.
|
|
By:
They cant win this case there terms and conditions are unfair and they took the bet at any time that bet could have been voided but only after they lost this is so seriously flawed that you just wonder what is there argument unless insider stuff or some other serious scenario but if its just a 3rd part funds they wont win because it opens up a serious can of worms about placing bets for 3rd parties as we have all done and the refunding of them if they win cost them far more and you will have law firms on the tv advertising if you ever placed a bet for a 3rd party claim now lol
Let's say for instance what you say is correct that the court finding said term was unfair means it does open this can of worms (as I've said it's a daft arguement but let's just say that is the case). You don't think there will be a can of worms opened up if the court decides that any attempt by a party to restrict or prevent a 3rd party from using another persons account for their benefit is unfair and invalid? They will basically be saying yeah just ignore all these identity checks and money laundering regulations that bookies, casinos, lotteries, bingos ask you to comply with because at the end of the day all you need to do is get a 3rd party to open up an account on your behalf and Bob's your uncle there is nothing that they can do to prevent it. |
|
By:
BPA .. bookmakers protection association . from early years .. ??
the bet in question leads to .. standing the bet as it rolled along to ........ 12 winners .. ? great wager if you are ON ... ? there lies the answers .. once a bet rolls on it may well have been killed off and the money applied to reduce liability .. still in the ...........satchell .. to help pay this BET ??? Traders now they call them .. and liability .. as bet ran its course all that time .. it starts with the BOOKMAKER NOW THE STAKE HOLDER .. in Charge of the said money and imminent pay out ..>> ? ... covering your backside comes to mind .. and should have been addressed ...........this shirking ........SHOULD NOT BE IN THE LANGUAGE OF LAYERS .. P.S. A bet is nothing till it has a winner on the slip and as it grows ....MORE WINNERS ... it deserves attention......MR TRADER .. ..... Changed days .. WHEN LIABILITIES WERE COVERED .. ITV SIX LAST RACE PRICES WERE COVERED SO MONEY WAS LEFT AFTER IT WAS ALL SCOOPED UP ....? NORMALLY AS ALL ...???? BEAT .. ONE SCENARIO .. Hope this helps .. but many standards have been breached on this occasion . ................. PUNTER CAN HAVE 6 T0 4 AS 2 TO 1 IS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE ... COMES TO MIND .. Minefield out there this gambling game BEWARE .. NO PUNTER should have to have a day in court to pay up .. MONEY ACCEPTED IS THE KEY .. |
|
By:
thats it sorted then
|
|
By:
Students brief need to clearly ask .What would have happened to the stake money if all selections had lost/unplaced??
and ask 365 to show evidence of past history to that extent? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Versloot Dredging BV and anr (Appellants) v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG and ors (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 45 On appeal from [2014] EWCA Civ 1349
there is an obvious and important difference between a fraudulently exaggerated claim and a justified claim supported by collateral lies. Where a claim has been fraudulently exaggerated, the insured’s dishonesty is calculated to get him something to which he is not entitled. The court distinguishes between a material lie or breach of contract and an immaterial one based on whether the intention of the party was to get something they would otherwise not be entitled to. Exactly what I have said in both my analogies about insurance contracts and bank contracts. Also what I have said about the court distinguishing between breaching contract terms by deceit to try and get bet365 to do something it would have otherwise not have done e.g setting up an account in someone else's name and potentially breaching conditions for sake of convenience which does not have any material affect on making bet365 do something it would not have otherwise done e.g granny putting a bet on through your account. I look forward to one of your half witted responses such as "ridiculous example" or "but the lawyer said". I'll take that as a no you don't want to bet with me? Typical forum bull****. "I know this, I know that" but then won't back it up with his money. Probably for the best I was going to suggest the loser donate to a charity but you're probably a more deserving charity case anyway. |
|
By:
ahhh Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG
He won't have expected that! |
|
By:
shrewd_dude - I do not expect the punter to win but I want them to win due to the fact that 365 took the bet, and they could have easily and quickly voided before any of the runners ran, they didn't do that expecting to fall on their T&Cs to bail them out, knowing full well if the bet didn't return a profit they would keep it. To me, and as pointed out above, they would have to prove that other bets have been placed and lost for the same reasons, and got voided after the events and money refunded for it to hold any water.
My point above about classing credit cards as "third party funds" (legally) was just that. To me (a clueless idiot), legally borrowing money to bet isn't your money and is indeed a "third party fund", wherever it comes from. What is the difference of "borrowing" money from a mate and placing a bet, or borrowing money from a credit card and having a bet?? Legally to me they are no different. Would this student have been paid out if it was paid by a credit card? |
|
By:
How do you know they had all the information at that time?
There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365. |
|
By:
how bet get on in 1st place
stinks they got caught out trying to nick an easy 25 large pay up welchers worse than pandorica |
|
By:
f*cking mobsters these firms, daylight robbery all the time and the government/media don't bat an eyelid. I really have never known a sport where the everyday person gets mugged off so obviously and so continuously only for nothing to be done about it. The higher ups really do hold us in utter contempt don't they.
|
|
By:
How do you know they had all the information at that time? What information do you mean? They accepted a bet that they knew could payout a large amount, the bet itself is obviously quite niche and anyone who is sticking on that sum in multis I would guess isn't just picking their bets out because of the colours of the silks from the paper. The flags would have went up as soon as it was accepted and 365 could have voided it quite easily (I have no issue with that at all). They didn't, and decided to let it run in its entirety and then claiming this 3rd party line - how is that fair? To me they would have to prove that they have voided plenty of losers after the results and paid back punters for their T&Cs to hold water.
There is no mention of "3rd party funds" in Bet365's terms of any other bookies as far as I'm aware so I cant see any reason why they wouldn't pay out. If it turns out that this female has simply borrowed money from someone to make a bet or used a credit card then I'd be flabbergasted if the court found in favour of 365. If she didn't already have the funds weeks before in her bank account, and someone sent it to her and then she placed the bet, she will obviously just say she has simply borrowed it from said person to place the bet for herself. |
|
By:
The ideal outcome would be that the third party scenario is declared irrelevant. There really is no basis for the bookie's claim that they have a right to refuse bets from certain people. They can use basic risk management to minimise exposure. In this case they were clearly happy to accept a large liability.
Money laundering etc is an issue for the authorities and the bookies merely require to identify people and report suspicions (which they aren't very good at if the individual is a big loser). |
|
By:
If one googles The Gambling Commision / Status of a bet as a contract, its website gives a definitive definition, its legalities and terms and conditions of a bet struck between two parties.
Basically, it says it is a legally enforceable contract subject to "terms and conditions" - that is the debatable and grey area which is subject to interpretations and legalities of learned individuals. But what it does not categorically stipulate is despite a bet has been placed with and accepted by a gambling business / entities the bet must be honoured regardless post a correct prediction ie no reneging after bet acceptance; a bet that has no chance of winning should never have been accepted at the outset. I believe '365' ought to honour the bet and not hide behind its terms and conditions post acceptance and post the result of the events; the source of stake money should not be disputed post the outcome of the bet. Instead, questions should have been asked and answers scrutinised prior to acceptance - it is £25k, not a few £. Is it not akin to Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) ie paying a small insurance premium in order to meet the terms and conditions of the contract set out by the other party with little and / or no chance of getting a payout should one is unable to honour the existing contract? I do not believe '365' will honour the bet, and the bettor will not benefit from the outcome either; stake money will be returned to bettor. Would it not be appropriate and sensible if the amount in question go to charities in need and / or racing communities? At least then there will benefactors. |