Can casinos take player losses while avoiding payouts of winning by claiming &quot;malfunction?&quot; It's very rare for players to hit the jackpot on a slot machine. Can a casino make sure they never have to pay that out by having the machines "malfunction" to display a larger-than-maximum amount in those rare cases, and then avoid having to pay out anything close to the maximum, while still retaining all the player losses? Example stories where the answer seems to be "yes" can be found with Katrina Bookman or Pauline McKee. Both played the slots at casinos that kept the players' losses, until they were notified by slot machine hardware that they'd won >$40M. Then the casinos pointed to signs “Malfunction voids all pays and plays,” and claimed that since the machines were malfunctioning, the casino didn't have to pay more than a couple dollars. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the casino in McKee's case and the New York State Gaming Commission agreed with the casino in Bookman's. In the words of Bookman's lawyer, "the casino used the same broken machine to take money from players, and that everyone who used the machine should at least get their money back...Doesn’t that mean a place can claim a machine is broken every time somebody wins?" That is the question here.
In the case of McKee v. Isle of Capri Casinos, we can tell because that case has been legally decided. As the court says, there was a contract and "the patron was not entitled to the bonus under those rules", and plaintiff "failed to prove the necessary elements of either promissory or equitable estoppel". They did not "represent to her that a bonus would be available if she played the game", and did not "promise to pay the $41 million after the notice was displayed". The (very complex) rules of the game are easily available on the machine, and there is a prominent disclaimer that "MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS". Under the rules, the winning configuration stated that she was entitled to $1.85. The problem was that it also announced "Bonus Award - $41797550.16". This was due to an inexplicable software error which in communicating with the central computer awarded a "legacy bonus", which is no part of the game in question. The maximum legacy bonus is $99999.99; the manufacturer knows of the possibility of this kind of error and has implemented a fix that is thought to eliminate the problem. The first point then is that the casino didn't just claim there was a malfunction, they proved that there was one. Second, the terms of the contract hold: she was entitled to $1.85, and the extraneous message was not part of the contract. That is, she did not actually win the large payout, the malfunction was in saying that she received a bonus. If a patron could likewise prove that they had actually won but the machine malfunctioned to represent the situation as a loss, they would of course be entitled to the appropriate winnings. The problem simply resides in the difficulty of a patron proving that.
If I may paraphrase the scenario: The customer has a contract with the insurer The customer is contemplating undergoing a certain procedure and is unsure if it is covered under the contract The customer calls the insurer to ask this specific question The insurer says "yes" The customer undergoes the procedure The insurer refuses to pay on the ground that it is not covered under the contract. Let's put aside issues of evidence and what can be proved and assume these facts are not in dispute. There is no question that the contract has been renegotiated; it hasn't. This avoids the necessity of considering if the insurer's employee has the authority to do this or it the customer can rely that they do even if they don't. There are two possibilities: The procedure is covered and the insurer must pay under contract The procedure isn't covered and the insurer must pay under the tort of negligent misstatement. The insurer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The insurer owes a duty of care to a customer who asks such a question to answer it correctly. It is foreseeable that the customer would act on the insurer's advice and incur costs that they may have avoided if the correct advice had been given. Nothing is ever certain in the law but this is as close as you can get.
It depends on what state this is. In Washington state, there is a form that sellers must fill out, and section 3 addresses sewer connections. This matter could have been disclosed – the allowed answers are &quot;yes; no; don't know&quot; (or NA). These are sellers disclosures, and Zillow / Redfin are free to be unreliable (I personally know that they are wrong about square footage). A real estate agent also doesn't become liable for being misinformed. Assuming your state has this or analogous question, &quot;No&quot; means that you were told (doesn't matter if you didn't notice it), and &quot;Don't know&quot; means you're gambling. Let's say that the answer was &quot;Yes&quot;. Still, you can't necessarily sue (and win): you would have to prove misrepresentation (fraud or negligence) and not innocent error. You could do this by, for instance, proving that seller had the septic tank cleaned out some years earlier. Perhaps an action against buyer's inspector is possible, since that's nominally what they might have been hired to find out. But that is only true if checking the sewer connection can reasonably be considered part of the deal, so you have to look at the contract with the inspector (and the inspector's report).
From a blog entry by Canadian lawyers familiar with sweepstakes and contest laws: In Canada, games of pure chance are prohibited as illegal lotteries under our Criminal Code... For contests of chance, making prize redemption conditional on answering a skill-testing question turns a game of pure chance into a (legal) game of mixed chance and skill. Generally, a time-limited, multi-step and multi-operational mathematical skill testing question, answered without assistance, is sufficient. That is under &sect;206 of the Criminal Code of Canada - Offences in relation to lotteries and games of chance. You will probably find similar statutes related to South Africa. It's not uncommon to see "games of chance" turned into "games of skill" in order to avoid the creation of illegal lotteries.
Nope. Say I sue you successfully, and the court delivers a judgement that awards $1000 in damages. It is not the responsibility of the small claims court to ensure that the judgement is fulfilled. In fact, the debtor (person who lost) can outright refuse to pay the creditor (or the person who won). They are not in violation of any law at this point. However, the creditor can ask the court for options on enforcing their judgement, and these can include, but are not limited to: Garnishing wages Providing a court order Seizure of assets (through court sheriff, don't use this yourself or you end up getting into criminal matters) and others to enforce the judgement. The debtor isn't liable for refusing, unless when they are in violation of a court order. Violating a court order is a criminal matter, and the debtor could possibly be found guilty of contempt of court. Oh, and the case wouldn't move on to a higher court. Cases go to a higher court when an appeal is made, generally when there has been an error in enforcing the law. You also need to be provided leave to make an appeal.
Free draws are outside the remit of the Gambling Act 2005 per this guidance from the Gambling Commission (section 4 from page 5 onwards). an arrangement is a lottery only if the participants are required to pay to enter. Therefore, free draws always have been and remain exempt from statutory control. Schedule 2 to the Act gives details of what is to be treated as amounting to ‘payment to enter’ for the purposes of distinguishing free draws from lotteries. Given that there is an alternative route (sending a letter by post) to entering the prize draw, it can be regarded as a &quot;free draw&quot; and is not considered gambling. To answer the other questions: Does that sound like a scheme for gig organisers to avoid having to refund / being held to account? Is it legal proof? No. It seems entirely pragmatic to be upfront that the gigs will not be going ahead until it's safe enough to withdraw social distancing guidelines. I don't know what you mean by &quot;legal proof&quot; here. If someone wins entry (having paid a &quot;donation&quot;) but the organisers never deem it safe for the gig to happen, will the donor be entitled to a refund? It seems unlikely that there is a contract here. You are not buying a ticket, merely the right to enter a draw which may reward you with a ticket. I suppose you could argue that a contract has been formed if you have the right to dispose of your right to enter the draw, but it seems worthless to me and I can't imagine that any valuable consideration has exchanged hands as a result. Still, it would be a matter for a court to decide on the facts at the end of the day.
Can a bank sue someone that starts a bank run that destroys the bank? No (assuming, of course, as is the usual case, that the person who starts the bank run is not engaged in perpetrating a defamatory falsehood). Most bank runs are, and certainly the Silicon Valley Bank bank run was, based upon wide disclosure of a true fact. In the case of SVB, the bank run was triggered by the fact that its balance sheets failed to reflect the true value of fixed nominal rate bonds that it held as assets. In the usual case, a lawsuit also isn't a very helpful option to a bank that suffers a bank run. In the case of SVB, the bank had a book value (which is often a fair measure of a bank's value since its assets are so monetized) of $34 billion which was reduced to a pittance by the run on it. Even if someone who started a run on the bank had a moderately high net worth of $3.4 million that could be collected in a money judgment, that would cover a mere 0.01% of the loss to the bank, and there would be serious issues over the causation of any loss (i.e. how much of the losses suffered bound to occur sooner or later anyway due to causes unrelated to someone who triggered a panic). Another fine point of procedure is that when a bank becomes insolvent, it is promptly taken over by the FDIC or similar regulatory agency, which installs a receiver. This makes it effectively impossible for the bank itself to sue anyone. If the bank would otherwise have had a right to sue, the receiver for the bank would have the right to sue rather than the bank itself. But, this subtly while not irrelevant, doesn't capture the core reason for the question.
If Hooters could prove that you never intended to accept the job, that would establish that you did not suffer any damages. You might also be charged with having abused the process of the court, and perhaps with perjury if you had said under oath that you did intend to take the job. If you already had a better-paying job, that would be evidence casting doubt on your intention to accept the Hooters job. Also, if you had a better-paying job and kept it, it would be hard to establish that you were financially damaged by refusal to hire you at Hooters, even if the Judge and jury believed that you really wanted the job for some reason. Thus any settlement is not likely to be large. If you admitted at the start of the case that you never intended to take the job, I suspect that the case would be summarily dismissed, and you might well be required to pay Hooters lawyers fees and other costs, and perhaps fined as well.