Legal question... at what specific point does your bet become a contract? (nt)
I have not read any cases on point, but a contract requires, amongst other things, an offer and acceptance. Your wager, properly placed, would be the offer. Acceptance would require an act communicating an intent to enter into the contract, such as dealing cards to you, spinning the wheel, or allowing the dice to thrown. (Craps is somewhat problematical, as the player may thrown down the bet at the last moment, not allowing a dealer to accept with a "that's a bet" or something similar.) All claims of breach of contract are, of course, subject to a number of defenses.
...the contract is with the state, not the casino. The casino is acting as an agent of the state (Indian casinos aside).
What I'm attemtping to determine is when a bet is an actual contract (cannot be nullified by casino or patron) and under what circumstances can a bet can be nullified. I've seen, and been involved in, incidences where bets have been made, then nullified by the casino after cards have been dealt. Sometimes it works to the benefit of the player, sometimes the casino/state.
Since a player cannot nullify a contract bet, why should the casino be able to after the contract has been accepted?
Why do you think a contract (bet) is with the state?
Your questions cannot be answered without more information. There are things which can occur that effect the rights and obligations of both the casino and the patron. Without more facs, you are seeking speculation.
Let us say it is a contract with the state. The state has licensed the casino, so perhaps they are the representative of the state.
Should the bet be nullified and it is agreeable to both player and casino there is no dispute.
Should the bet be nullified and a party disagrees, there is the state gaming board to solve the dispute. (In the real world, that means you generally lose)
Let us not indulge in fiction.
As I stated, there are situations where a bet has been placed and cards are dealt.
If you need a more concrete example, let's say you are playing a deeply dealt pitch game. Your count stipulates that a max bet should be placed. You place a bet on two squares and you are dealt two hands of two cards. The dealer has two cards and some left in her hand. You pull a card or two to make your hands. Let's say that the dealer turns her cards and continues to pull, say, six cards in an attempt to make her hand, but runs out of cards.
Now what happens?
You have made a legal bet which the casino has accepted by dealing the cards. You now have potenially two winning hands, but the dealer has run out of cards. The boss comes over and invalidates the hand.
1) Does the casino have this authority once a bet has been accepted by both parties. 2) Does the player have any legal grounds to contest this decision?
Here's another: You place a bet larger than the table max and are dealt cards anyway, thereby signifying acceptance of your bet by both parties. You're dealt a 16v10. Lovely. Then you realize you have broken "house rules" which, under normal circumstances, would have caused the PC to invalidate the hand. Now, do you, the player, have the ability to invalidate the hand? Certainly not.
Let me restate my question: When does a bet become irrevokable by either party?
Let me restate my question: When does a bet become irrevokable by either party?
Short answer - probably never. Although a contract is defined as an offer, acceptance, and consideration, there can always be a circumstance which excuses performance, voids the contract obligations or otherwise provides a defense.
In your first example, the casino has accepted the bet, which requires a completion of the hand (contract) if reasonably practical.
Custom in the industry would seem to call for solving the problem by shuffling the discards and finishing the hand. In other words, one cannot escape a contract responsibilty by contriving an artifice such as "running out of cards."
In the second fact pattern, the "acceptance" you mention may in fact be a mutual or unilateral mistake, either of which can be a legal defense to execution of a contract, depending on whether you were mistaken in placing the larger bet or the casino was mistaken in accepting it. The most important inquiry in any contract dispute is determining the intent of the parties. Did the parties intend to enter into a wager for more than the stated table limit? Since the dealer is the agent of the casino, his or her conduct, if any, by way of acknowledging the size of the bets would be of assistance in determining the intent of the casino to cover the bet. Your knowledge of the table limit, along with any other relevant facts (statements made when placing the bet, previous bets in excess of the limit, etc.) would be helpful as to your intent. A prior acceptance of a bet in excess of the limit is persuasive evidence of intent.
As to your 16 v. 10 scenario, whether you have, as you say, broken a rule (which I doubt, since a table limit is not really a "rule") is not dispositive of the question. Again, it is intent of the parties. Your intent seems clear. Ascertaining it is another question, if you are willing to commit perjury in denyng your knowledge of the limits.
Legal questions are rarely cut and dry. The facts and circumstances of one scenario may be different than another, resulting in another approach. In contract disputes, the law is guided by the intent of the parties, driven by the facts. That's why lawyers are fond of saying, "It depends." :-)
"Legal questions are rarely cut and dry. The facts and circumstances of one scenario may be different than another, resulting in another approach. In contract disputes, the law is guided by the intent of the parties, driven by the facts. That's why lawyers are fond of saying, "It depends." :-)"
And that's why we have lawyers in the first place! :)
Neko
... Hmmm, let's see. There's the congress (generally lots of lawyers) and the courts (former lawyers) and the Supreme Court (more lawyers).
The idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has become a joke, since even lawyers admit THEY often can't figure out the law. They seem amused when people expect some clarity or fair notice. Something better than "shucks, it depends on what judge you get, and the kind of lawyer you can afford."
As you point out, all the layers of complexity profit no one but the lawyers. But even the lawyers should be working to simplify, simplify, else the revolution will come sooner -- and that hastens the day when lawyers become beggars.
But make no mistake, a revolution IS coming. I'd bet on it, except I'm hoping it comes after I'm gone.
ETF
"Legal questions are rarely cut and dry. The facts and circumstances of one scenario may be different than another, resulting in another approach. In contract disputes, the law is guided by the intent of the parties, driven by the facts. That's why lawyers are fond of saying, "It depends." :-)"
And that's why we have lawyers in the first place! :)
The set of laws by which we are compelled [I'm not an attorney. MY expertise derives from six credit hours of commercial law required to sit for the Uniform CPA Examination and substantial youthful defendant status) are an amalgam of common law inherited from the Anglo-Saxon past not strictly verifiable from historical record, enacted statute and the commonsense of what the law should and shouldn't be injected into the process by judges.
As an example of the first source, have you ever wondered by cross-lane turns are forbidden [you DO know this, right?]? Because of the concept that all traffic must proceed in-line and in-lane, which stems from the time of Arthur, if there were such a king.
As an example of the second source, we can rely upon the observation of Mark Twain that "Neither man nor beast is safe while the legislature sits in session".
And for an example of the last source, I can cite something that happened in Phoenix a quarter century ago. An ambulance driver was hustling a critical patient to the hospital. At a traffic signal, lights flashing and siren blasting, he crept through the intersection against the red light and was nailed by an octogenarian who refused to relinquish right-of-way. The driver was being prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney because, in Arizona, ambulance companies are (or were) privately owned and by ARS, privately-owned vehicles cannot be emergency vehicles and must punctiliously observe all traffic laws. The circuit court judge who sat upon the case opined, in essence, that: "What bunk! If I am in the back in the back of an ambulance, and the driver is short-cutting his way through traffic to save my life, then an ambulance is an emergency vehicle and this case is dismissed."
I'm not a man of the law. I live by right and wrong and I refuse to change. In my youth I was a victim of a malicious prosecution, engineered by a vindictive local police department. It was a conspiracy case, although my alleged co-conspirators were completely unknown to me. Perjured testimony by a state police undercover [I'm not making this up] and co-operation by a reactionary judge earned me a conviction.
Unfortunately, most sitting judges seem to be former prosecutors and are more than willing, are indeed eager, to violate the oaths they took to assume their offices. But this is not universal. The only saving grace of our system is the occasional maverick, like the one in Phoenix, who combines a functioning thought process with a sense of decency. The rest are human garbage.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Henry VI (Part 2)
Act IV, Scene II
I'm not shocked by your story. I've seen the wheels of justice veer far off the road of justice myself. Yes, I know, expert liars often win in court, and there are plenty of people who practice the art of deception from infancy. The truth is often less believable than a good lie.
But I can't go as far as: "Unfortunately, most sitting judges seem to be former prosecutors and are more than willing, are indeed eager, to violate the oaths they took to assume their offices."
I think at least 75% of the public, in any given walk of life, are well-meaning people who try hard to do the right thing (within reason). The percentage might be lower among lawyers. Alright, it probably IS lower among lawyers (power corrupts, etc.). But surely a majority, albeit perhaps a slim one, are trying.
Now, it's certainly possible for someone to be evil while trying with all their might to do good. For example, blind faith in a system that's ultimately untenable can cause enormous harm. But we can debate that another day.
ETF
If you need a more concrete example, let's say you are playing a deeply dealt pitch game. Your count stipulates that a max bet should be placed. You place a bet on two squares and you are dealt two hands of two cards. The dealer has two cards and some left in her hand. You pull a card or two to make your hands. Let's say that the dealer turns her cards and continues to pull, say, six cards in an attempt to make her hand, but runs out of cards.
Now what happens?
Typical house rules reshuffles the discard pile and then immediately deals this. Why is this any different than from any other rule which is not visually printed on the table?
Here's another: You place a bet larger than the table max and are dealt cards anyway, thereby signifying acceptance of your bet by both parties. You're dealt a 16v10. Lovely. Then you realize you have broken "house rules" which, under normal circumstances, would have caused the PC to invalidate the hand. Now, do you, the player, have the ability to invalidate the hand? Certainly not.
Betting more than table max (typical house rules and if the dealer is cognizant that you are exceeding this limit) will result in only a max payout minus the exceeding amount. However, if you bet below the table min and win, the lowered bet will almost always be paid (and then warned to up it to the min).
When does a bet become irrevokable by either party?
Gambling in a business is not a privilege; it's not a freedom or bill of right. You are a patron that agrees (whether you are cognizant or not) to their business rules when you plop down that wager. You have the right to question and clarify all the rules you may so inquire, but they do not have to initially orient you beforehand. Buyer beware.
Your Honor.
What's the difference between a cornered rooster and a cornered lawyer?
.ecnaifed skculc retsoor derenroc ehT
"Typical house rules reshuffles the discard pile and then immediately deals this."
I've never seen this happen. I've played double deck games where the dealer ran out of cards and the entire hand was invalidated. I'm asking these questions to know what options I have if these sitations are encountered. I played a different table game where I gave some chips to a neighboring player to add to his bet, the cards were dealt, then the PC came over and took my chips off the other players bet. I thought once the cards were dealt, neither the player nor the casino change change the original bet.
House rules also state you, the player, can't change your bet once the cards are dealt. This just also happens to be a state rule, which, if broken, could land you in prison. If the casino cheats, there are laws for that, too, even though rarely enforced.
I'm trying to determine what is a legal bet (contract accepted by both parties) and what I can do if I feel the contract has been broken unduly by the casino. And, what are my options at that point in time.
toddler
I concur. When it seems to their advantage, the casino will invoke the determination that a wager is a "contract bet" and cannot be altered. Just try removing a Pass line bet at the craps table after establishing a point. Of course, if you'd like to remove your Don't Pass wager under the same circumstance, they'll smilingly oblige.
Their position may just be that you relinguished all your rights, including the right to what had been your money, when you passeed through the entrance. With what kind of people do you think you are dealing?
I thought once the cards were dealt, neither the player nor the casino change change the original bet.
You are looking for fairness in all the wrong places.
They take pictures of everything you do. If you take a picture, you're violating the rules (which, by some god forsaken logic have the force of law), so it will be inadmissable in a court of law.
I've heard stories about advantage players who took videos of a cheating dealer. Their lawyer advised them not to pursue the case because THEY could wind up in jail.
There is nothing fair about a casino. They take your money before you even place a bet. In their minds, they are doing you a huge favor when they give some of it back to you. Many judges are going to see it that way too.
You're wasting on a lot of time trying to find a clear cut answer where none exists. It depends on your luck in the judge lottery, and how much you're able/willing to pay a lawyer.
Suppose you brought suit, and won. They could literally make a law the next day that said something like "When the cards run out, the pit boss can decide whether to allow play to contine by shuffling the discards, or to void all hands." And the rule would have the force of law.
They make the rules. It's not supposed to be fair.
ETF
