- This topic has 41 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Apologies for coming to this topic so late. I don’t log on to the forum that often nowadays.
Also, I’m not conversant with any changes in the law regarding betting since I last studied (or was lectured on) it – some 45 years ago. BUT –
It always used to be the case that a bet was not a “contract”. It didn’t fulfill all the necessary terms for a legally enforceable contract. So that, if a punter refused to pay his bill, he couldn’t be taken to court and sued. Similarly, a bookmaker couldn’t be sued for breach of contract if it didn’t pay up.Because no ” contract” had been struck. Although there was “offer” & “acceptance”, there wasn’t a clearly defined benefit or deal (can’t quite remember the terminology) clearly available to both parties.
Has this changed?
Couldn’t BET365 just turn around and say “we’re not paying. This is not a legally enforceable contract, so any recourse to the law, no matter how clever a lawyer you hire, is a waste of time. Bets are not legal contracts.”
Maybe the law has changed. Maybe the introduction of Internet betting has somehow led to a change in the legal staus of a bet and one does now constitute a “contract”.
I’d be interested to be updated on this.<p abp=”249″>Apologies for coming to this topic so late. I don’t log on to the forum that often nowadays.<br abp=”250″>
Also, I’m not conversant with any changes in the law regarding betting since I last studied (or was lectured on) it – some 45 years ago. BUT –<br abp=”251″>
It always used to be the case that a bet was not a “contract”. It didn’t fulfill all the necessary terms for a legally enforceable contract. So that, if a punter refused to pay his bill, he couldn’t be taken to court and sued. Similarly, a bookmaker couldn’t be sued for breach of contract if it didn’t pay up.Because no ” contract” had been struck. Although there was “offer” & “acceptance”, there wasn’t a clearly defined benefit or deal (can’t quite remember the terminology) clearly available to both parties.<br abp=”252″>
Has this changed?<br abp=”253″>
Couldn’t BET365 just turn around and say “we’re not paying. This is not a legally enforceable contract, so any recourse to the law, no matter how clever a lawyer you hire, is a waste of time. Bets are not legal contracts.”<br abp=”254″>
Maybe the law has changed. Maybe the introduction of Internet betting has somehow led to a change in the legal staus of a bet and one does now constitute a “contract”.<br abp=”255″>
I’d be interested to be updated on this.I suspect thdey’re non-binding but when I was refused full payment of a place accumulator over 50 years ago, I told the high street independent bookie I would oppose his next licence application. Not that it would have been refused but there would certainly have been a press interes, I would have made sure of that. I walked in the next day and the other partner said to me, “It was you that made the Yankee bet, wasn’t it”, at the same time he pushed an envelope acroass the counter with full payment.
The question bookies would have to answer is if there’s no contract, why do they publish terms and conditions?
Couldn’t BET365 just turn around and say “we’re not paying. This is not a legally enforceable contract, so any recourse to the law, no matter how clever a lawyer you hire, is a waste of time. Bets are not legal contracts.”
Maybe the law has changed. Maybe the introduction of Internet betting has somehow led to a change in the legal staus of a bet and one does now constitute a “contract”.
I’d be interested to be updated on this.TRF’s legal beagle Wit could supply the nuts and bolts, but as far as I’m aware gambling transactions became legally enforceable following the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 and subsidiary Gambling Commission:
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Your-rights/Status-of-a-bet-as-a-contract.aspx
Wit dug the following out of their Ts and Cs earlier in the thread:
5. By accepting these Terms and Conditions and/or placing bets or wagers and/or making use (whether authorised or not) of the facilities offered by bet365 (whether through the Website or otherwise), you irrevocably agree that the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms and Conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, bet365 shall be entitled to bring a claim against a customer in the court of the customer’s country of domicile.”
insomniac, Drone is correct:
with effect from 1 Sep 2007 in GB the Gambling Act 2005, Part 17 repealed in particular section 18 Gaming Act 1845 (voiding of gaming contracts) (section 334 GA 2005) and by section 335 provided that “The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement”:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/335
section 336 then gives the Gambling Commission power to void a bet it considers “substantially unfair”.
this case is in Belfast though and i am not sure if and how the Gambling Act works through into Northern Ireland – certainly the Gambling Commission says its remit does not extend there, being limited to GB only and not the UK:
this seems affirmed by the NI Executive:
https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/topics/law-and-legislation/betting-gaming-lotteries-and-amusementsand it seems that gambling debts are still not enforceable across the border in the Republic of Ireland:
case has rated a brief mention when Friday saw 19 June 2018 fixed for a one-day pre-trial application by bet365 to get a Master in Belfast High Court to strike out parts of the claim:
no detailed legal arguments yet publicised by either side.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.