- This topic has 44 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
You could sum this case up in a few words or the debate can go on for hours but my take on this is that Corals made a simple mistake which you took your chance on and it didn’t pay off.
It’s abit like Corals losing their wallet, you find it in the shop and hand it in with the money missing.
I’m fairly sure that the wording ‘palpable error’ no long applies. The rule still exists basically in the same form but I’m pretty sure there is a reason why they either don’t or are not allowed to use the phrase palpable error anymore.
It still amounts to the same though I’m afraid, and I’ve a sneaky suspicion the punter in question was probably shrewd enough to know how far out a quote of 33/1 was for the horse, but obviously I wouldn’t like to say with certainty. Bad luck, I’d say you’re a million to get paid out at the price.
Wit,
Would the "Unfair Contract Conditions" also apply to palpable error in that the bookmaker has complete control of the offered prices – he sets them, he displays them, he or his agent accepts bets priced accordingly. The punter has no input to that accept accepting prices offered or not. At the time of making
any
bet a punter has no certainty of being paid out at a price taken, whatever the bet.
Another common issue is having bets accepted after the off time. If it wins the bet stake only is returned. It is classed as a non-contract. If it loses, the bookmaker keeps the stake. What is the legal issue here?
Both good points.
Taking the second first, the bookie has no basis for keeping the stake if it loses. The contract of wager is either void or it is not. If it is void, you now re-set everything as if the bet was never placed. Previously because you couldn’t sue on the contract, the rule about money staying where it happened to have fallen might apply. No longer.
For the first point, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs certainly are more grist to the mill, but as I see the legal issue there is something more fundamental than that happening in Darren’s case.
The crux is that – without any shenanigans of any kind by Darren – he is holding two contracts that have been prepared and issued by the bookie.
Legally the onus is on the bookie to show that those contracts should not be enforced according to their terms.
The bookie will say " I made a mistake, I certainly never intended 33/1, [plus I reckon that Darren never intended 33/1], so there was never in fact a consenus between me and Darren, and the contract should therefore be rectified to reflect what was the real consensus, or cancelled because there was no consensus".
The bookie has two big problems in saying that.
First, factually the bookie has to produce evidence that on the balance of probabilities a Court will find supports his contentions.
If the bookie doesn’t do that, the contracts stand according to their terms.
The law will not accept the bookie making himself judge and jury in the matter – the bookie has to prove it in Court.
Second, even if the bookie manages to prove all the above factually, he STILL in addition has to get over another hurdle, the doctrine of estoppel.
In the words of Halsbury’s Laws on Mistake, para 26 [square brackets are mine]:
==================
….where there is no genuine consensus between the parties, and therefore prima facie there should be no contract, [the doctrine of estoppel] may nonetheless have effect to prevent a party
from denying that a consensus with the other party exists.
Thus it may enable a party [punter] to succeed on a claim on which, without the estoppel, he would have failed.
This can apply in relation to mistake as to the parties, mistake as to the subject matter, or indeed mistake as to any other terms of a contract….
For an estoppel to operate, there must be a representation (by words or conduct) by one party
as to the position, intended by that party to be acted upon by the other [punter], believed and acted upon by the other [punter], so that he would be worse off if the first party
were able to go back on his representation.
For this purpose, giving his promise and thereby making the contract is a sufficient act in reliance, because it deprives him [punter] of the opportunity to decide to do otherwise.
If the representor
makes the representation, it does not matter what his real intention was, or whether he realised that what he was representing was not true, so long as a reasonable man would take the representation to be true, and believe that it was intended to be acted upon.
Moreover, equity will not rescind the common law agreement on the basis of unilateral mistake by the representor
.
===============================
In Court the bookie has to do all the work, and has a mountain to climb.
The bookie basically has to show that Darren both intended to and would have backed the horse at a tenth of the price quoted, in circumstances where Darren has indicated that he was picking and choosing whether to bet according to prices quoted.
I think all the cards really are in Darren’s favour and in his position I would go for it.
There are a lot of bookie practices of the past that are very vulnerable now that wagering contracts can be taken to Court, and this is very much one of them.
best regards
wit
- Total Posts 17716
Pure genius.
Look Here is 66/1 and 33/1 with the main bookies for the Arc, although she isn’t running. I’m sure if I went to place a bet tomorrow they would take my money. Went to have an ante post bet on the National once and noticed a horse that was sadly deceased was still in the betting, and I’m sure they would have taken my money for that also. If they write the odds on your betting slip, do they not have to honour that price? Given that Zacinto was @ 28/1 on Saturday the bookies do sometimes get it badly wrong, don’t they? Surely both bookies and punters need to do their homework.
- Total Posts 17716
I remember a "palpabel error" in last seasons Desert Orchid chase at Kempton when the bookies priced up a horse called Fiepes Shuffle at 33/1,4 days prior to the race!this beast had won 16 times in Germany and came over to plunder a decent prize,the horse was very well supported on the day and a lot of Euro"s from Germany snaffled the fancy prices! Flipper should have been a 10/1 shot that day,i dont suppose you told the Bookies he was overpriced Darren did you?
That was a "palpable error"? You mean they refused to pay out all those shrewdies?
There’s a world of difference between punters being better informed and taking an inflated price – that’s absolutely fair game – and punters trying to get on an 8-11 shot at 8-1 because some microchip’s gone wonky on a screen or some input clerk’s made a slip of the keyboard.
Really surprised that some forumites can’t see the difference.
Mike
But what if the punter had taken 8/11 the 8/1 shot? Do you honestly believe the unsuspecting customer would have had this made clear to them as part of company policy?
Thanks to recent legislation, it’s now a legal issue not a moral one, and the bookies are no longer playing with all the cards stacked in their favour. Go for it in the Small Claims Court I’d say, anything that redresses the balance has to be good for punters in the long-term, and it’s high time we had a voice somewhere.Well, 24 hours after I started the thread, I appear to have divided the nation!! I certainly know more now that I did yesterday! Thanks for all your help and information on the subject. There have also been quite a few questions in my direction, which I’m hoping will be answered if I mention what actually went on in the bookmakers when I place the bet.
As I said, I had shopped around for prices, and Wiener Walzer was the horse I was primarily looking at – I even did this preview on my website:
VERDICT:
A superb line up for this Group 1 event. Getaway and Flamingo Fantasy are closely matched through their two meetings this year, however preference is for the latter with the predicted quick ground. Eastern Anthem must go close if anywhere near his Sheema Classic winning form, however I’m sticking with WIENER WALZER and the in-form Fredrik Johansson to land the spoils.
PREDICTION:
1st – 7 WIENER WALZER
2nd – 1 EASTERN ANTHEM
3rd – 2 FLAMINGO FANTASYIn my home town, there are about 4 bookmakers within 200 yards or so. I went into the first one, and they did not have any prices. The second on is my regular one, and they had Wiener Walzer backed in from 9/2 to 3-1, which I wasn’t surprised about. I then went into the third bookmakers, and asked for prices. There was just one cashier there, a very young lad, only about 18-19 I’d guess. I asked him for prices, and as you kind of have to lean over the counter to see the screen, I couldn’t see the bottom of the screen, so he lifted it up for me, and right at the bottom was Wiener Walzer at 33-1! However, one thing I did notice was how much out the prices were with other bookmakers. Indocine has already put the prices that Corals had on the race earlier in this thread. Next to them, I’ve put the prices of the bookmaker I put the bet on with – I can’t remember all the prices, but they were something like this:
Corals Where I bet
Getaway 7-4 7-2
Wiener Walzer 11-4 33-1
Flamingo Fantasy 4-1 9-4
Eastern Anthem 6-1 15-8
Poseidon Adventure 10-1 7-1
Saphir 20-1 12-1
Schiller Danon 20-1 20-1As I say, some of these are off memory, but I know that Eastern Anthem was 15/8 and Getaway 7-2 (my mate had £10 on Getaway). Anyway, I looked at the prices, and the first thing I said was ‘Blimey’, because Eastern Anthem was 15/8. Then I saw Wiener Walzer was 33-1, so I said to the cashier ‘Are these prices for the 4:15 at Cologne today, the Rheinland Pokal?’, to which he said yes. I then mentioned to the cashier how far out the prices seemed to be. I then wrote out my slip for Wiener Walzer, £20 each way at 33-1. As I handed over the slip, I asked the cashier again ‘These prices are definately correct are they?’, and he just kind of shrugged and said ‘Yeah’, to which I replied ‘In that case, I’ll have £20 each way at Wiener Walzer at 33-1 please. I think that’s an amazing price – it’s only 3-1 over the road!’ But the cashier just put the slip through and asked me for £40. As people who saw me lead in Flipper that day at Kempton, I’m not brilliant at keeping my emotions in check, so you can imagine what I was like when I left the shop. £20 each way at 33-1 on a horse I considered to have a favourites chance. I popped back into my usual bookies, and the manager noticed I looked a bit flustered. I asked him to get the prices for the race up. He did, and Wiener Walzer was 3-1, so I showed him my betting slip, to which he replied with a voice higher than the Bee Gees: ‘WHAT PRICE???!!!??!’.I told him what had happened, and I honestly asked him if the bet would be valid, as he has been a betting shop manager for several years. I told him that I asked several times if the prices the correct, and they were not queried. He saw that the cashier had marked the price down clearly, and said he would go over to have a look. He came back a few minutes later, and said ‘Yeah, I queried it, but he still gave me 33-1’. I mentioned this to two of my close friends – one backed Wiener Walzer, one backed Getaway. I desperately racked my brain trying to think of what had happened, and the only thing I could think of was that it was mentioned in the Racing Post I think it was, that Wiener Walzer would be sent off in front. As Getaway and Wiener Walzer are of the same ownership, did the bookmakers who offered me 33-1 think that Wiener Walzer would be the pacemaker for Getaway? That was the one thing I could think of.
I took a walk round town, even then wondering if I had something wrong. I knew that the bookmakers who I had placed the bet with had another branch, so I thought best to go in there and just check. This time, a man in his 30s I guess was serving, and he seemed to be much more knowledgeable than his colleague at the other branch. Again I requested prices. Again Wiener Walzer was 33-1. Again I asked if these prices were correct. Again I was told yes.Therefore, another £5 each way at 33-1, and I actually felt a lot more comfortable knowing that it wasn’t an error by the young cashier in the earlier branch.
A good friend of mine who backed both Wiener Walzer and Getaway mentioned something about betting overrounds and percentages. I really had no idea what he was taking about, but he seemed to think that 33-1 Wiener Walzer was correct as, if it was around 3-1, the overround and percentage would be out of sync with the other bookmakers.
Since that day, the trainee manager who was on duty that day has actually supported my case – after all, he did offer to pay me out, and obviously, it’s quite difficult for him to take sides really – I don’t want to get him into trouble at work.
Before the Wiener Walzer incident, I had never heard of the term ‘palpable error’, and several of the postings on this thread ask if I thought it was a ‘palpable error’ by the bookmaker. If ‘palpable error’ means a stand-out error, then you would have to say yes, but then is offering 15/8 on a 6-1 shot (Eastern Anthem) also not a ‘palpable error’?
The problem in my eyes seems to be pricing up major German races. Take the Europa Preis at Cologne on Sunday. I went into my regular bookmakers, and that day, I heard that German Derby fourth Eliot was well fancied to run a big race, and was around 6-1 in Germany I asked what price he was – and was offered 16-1! I took it, he came third, and I was paid out no problem. I’ve also seen horses in Germany in my regular bookmakers priced up totally different to what they are showing on the tote screen in Germany – a horse at Frankfurt recently was showing quite clearly ’82’ (7.2-1) in Germany, yet my regular bookmakers went 40-1 for some time.
You guys have been really, really helpful to me on this case – thanks again, especially to those of you who have advised me what my next steps could me, and even those of you who think I’ve done something wrong, thanks again for your comments – I think it’s good to have a ‘for’ and ‘against’ on the forum, and it’s been really enlightening.
Darren – AngloGerman
______________________________New Website – Anglo German Racing
http://www.anglogermanracing.comsounds like it wasn’t even a mistake – the bookie was just running a different market, and has a history of doing so.
that would seem to kill all hope for the bookie in Court.
shifting the focus to IBAS, did they have this whole background from you?
do you know what the bookie said to them ?
the IBAS decision seems very odd in light of what you’ve said.
it would be good to have an answer ready if that aspect was to be queried by the Court. but not to worry if not.
the latest IBAS annual report seems to indicate their self-awareness that their yesteryear role in the whole area of pricing disputes is now on borrowed time:
====================
…Many customers believe that a bookmaker
who displays an incorrect price or leaves
a market open in error ‘should be made
to pay for the mistake.’Such an argument may one day be tested in court but for
the moment IBAS points out that the
bookmaker’s rules give it the right to
correct such errors and that bets are
accepted subject to those terms and
conditions.Bookmakers and other gambling
operators should be aware that their
terms of trade must not conflict with the
law of contract…..=======================
http://www.ibas-uk.com/pdf/IBAS_Annual%20Report_08.pdf
best regards
wit
If anybody knows more about English law than Wit,then i have never met them,incredible reading/writing there!Unfortunately as fantastic a thread as this is becoming and its reading like a "Miss Marple" novel, Darren has no chance of collecting,I"m afraid the "Lads broke"!!
Wit,
Many thanks for reply above. Some posters are confusing legal liability with perceived fairness (as long as it happens to someone else that is).
Reminds me a lot of the Hoover Air Flights "palpable" error case:
The Hoover free flights promotion was a marketing promotion begun in 1992 in which the British division of The Hoover Company promised free airline tickets to customers who purchased more than £100 worth of their products. However, what Hoover had not anticipated was that huge numbers of customers started buying Hoover products not because they wanted the actual appliances, but simply because they wanted the tickets.
Initially the offer was for two round-trip tickets to Europe, but later it was expanded to the USA, at which point the consumer response increased enormously, as the normal price of these flights was several times more than the £100 purchase required to get free tickets. The company subsequently found itself overwhelmed by the demand for tickets (and even for new vacuum cleaners) and the cost of the flights.
In 1994, Sandy Jack took Hoover to Court over the free flight promotion. The BBC Watchdog programme’s investigation of customer complaints about the promotion, by reporter Hilary Bell, brought the matter to even wider public attention.
The court cases went on until 1998. After the fiasco had cost the company almost £50 million, the British division of Hoover was sold to the Italian manufacturer Candy.
Always a good idea to look up dictionary definitions:
palpable definition pal·pable (pal′pə bəl)
adjective
1.that can be touched, felt, or handled; tangible
2.easily perceived by the senses; audible, recognisable, perceptible, noticeable, etc.
3.clear to the mind; obvious; evident; plainIf the "error" at the time the bet was made is not easy to perceive (by bookmaker), not noticeable, not clear, not obvious, or not evident, then it is NOT "palpable".
And why does it all become so obvious (palpable)at time of payout, but not beforehand?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.