How would you feel?

[Sachs]

http://uk.news.yahoo....tain-bet-fa6b408.html

[sara3]

ouch! I think I would also seek legal advice.

[joggerjayne]

Wow ... I'd be seriously miffed.

[NoMercy]

Mistake or not, they accepted the bet. As far as I know, that's legally binding contract.

[Sachs]

Bit of a difference in what he thought he'd get! It will be interesting to see what happens!

[ChuckFickens]

I think I would be a little gutted!

And also would be seeking legal advice

[cazzz1975]

its worth seeking legal advice, he has a good case, I would be a bit miffed!!

[kawakiri]

I presume Ladbrokes rules are still but on display and this would clarify the matter.

[Sachs]

But they took the bet? Tricky one?

[NoMercy]

Money changed hands, tickets were printed. That's as good as signing on the dotted line. I don't know whether he will get the full amount he was expecting, but he will sure as hell get a lot more than 31 lousy quid. Good luck to him, I hope he sues their cheating *** off.

[joggerjayne]

In accepting the stake, the Ladbrokes cashier ...

... who for all purposes of cash transactions, is the company's "employee, agent, servant or authorized representative" ...

... indicated by his/her action that the company's normal rules would not preclude the acceptance of the bet in this instance.

[NoMercy]

We could always campaign on behalf of the claimant. Organise a massive boycott, stand outside the offending branch with placards, take a petition to Number 10. He may throw a big Veuve reception in our honour when he gets his money thru !

[puss_boots]

I thought that gambling debts were binding in honour only, must google it.

[rinkins]

I can think of another good use for Sara's hammer drill LOL

[joggerjayne]

Just rifled through my drawers for some of my old (unsuccessful) betting slips.

They are plain on the back. They don't say "subject to our standard Terms of Business"

I would argue that this transaction was not conducted on the basis of the betting shop's Terms of Business.

Evidence in support?

(1) No reference is made to any terms on the documents which forms the record of the transaction (the betting slip)

(2) The terms of the wager were not in accordance with the standard Terms, which, accordingly, could not have applied.

[Drisgirl]

They took the bet on so they should stump up and then make water tight any anomolies in their system.They wouldnt make a similar mistake again if indeed there was one.

They have a case to answer and I bet on a double plus a yankee that its settled out of court.

[kawakiri]

Ladbrokes get out:
Under the Gambling Act 2005 a bet is now an enforceable contract and Section 334 repealed the old provisions preventing enforcement.
However, Section 335 of the Act, relating to the enforceability of gambling contracts, states ''...gambling contracts may be void on the same basis as any other contract (for example, on the basis of lack of intention, mistake or illegality)''.

[joggerjayne]

I'm with Dris.

I'd split the pair and double down on both cards, here.

The House is going to bust !

[NoMercy]

I bet my life the cashier will not be handling any more transactions. lol

[NoMercy]

"Lack of intention"

Yes.... they lack any intention of paying the poor guy what is rightfully his...

[joggerjayne]

Kawa ...

"Mistake" in contract law is different from the simple idea of "making a mistake"

There has to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to the intended nature of the transaction.

Here, both parties understood the nature of the transaction.

One party, "by mistake" did not realise that the bet was otherwise precluded by pre-existing terms.

That is not a "Mistake" in the contract law sense.