Legal dispute over jackpot hinges on sticky note deal

Quote: Wizard

the first party asked the second party to bet $6 on Megabucks. He gave her an article about the game and put a sticky note on saying something to the effect to split any winnings.

Did he even specify equal split? If he had to give her an article was she utterly ignorant, if so should more of the burden fall on him due to his unexercised superior knowledge?

Would anyone really say the "winnings" were the fifteen dollars in credits? Thats like saying the winning shared lottery ticket was a "free ticket for next week's drawing" but the agreement only extends to the first week.

Her different stories shows that each is concocted.

I would indeed impose a fifty fifty split on "the winnings"....meaning the jackpot.

Heck, I used to buy a weekly lottery ticket for an office pool and I always wrote on the ticket in advance "coworker's pool ticket".

Whenever someone asks me to place a wager for them, I'll take the money, put it in my pocket, and then give them a sad and serious look and solemnly say "I'm sorry, your bet lost". The smart ones change their mind and ask for their money back.

If she hit the jackpot with her own money, then the jackpot is hers.

Part of the case will hinge on whether or not a contract was in force. My, albeit limited, knowledge of contract law would tell me that there was indeed a contract, in that she performed a service for the other party. By accepting the money, and betting in the fashion indicated, she fulfilled what would nominally indicate that she was agreeing to the contract.

The second part will indeed be whether or not she lost his money, and then proceeded to gamble with his own, or if the jackpot winnings were made in part with his own money. Some of this might be mitigated on the terms of the contract. For example, if he wrote on the sticky note, "Take this $6 and bet it on Megabucks and any winnings you get, we'll split it," then I think she will be out of luck. Once the court finds that there was a legitimate contract, and the contract was performed, then she will have to pay out the money. On the other hand, if the sticky note said, "Anything you win with this $6, we'll split it," then the issue will get thorny.

I've had to deal with a similar situation, but on a much smaller scale, and not dealing with gambling. In my business as a liquidator, I sometimes work with other people, and occasionally front the money for possible deals. I had a "partner" at one point in time, to whom I had given a large chunk of money, with the deal being that he could purchase any liquidations, and we would split the profits on the deals. I was fronting the money, and he fronted the labor, so it was fair to me. He ended up coming across a really great liquidation deal that made, I think, around $25k. But when I asked him about, I was told that he bought that deal with HIS money, and not with mine, and thus he wasn't obligated to split the profits with me. (Which is why I'm not sure exactly how much it made, but I can guesstimate.) Lesson learned. I no longer partner with that individual, and all contracts now indicate that ANY liquidations are a split profit, as long as the person is working with my money.

To me, the sad part about the article in question is the amount of money involved. After taxes, let's go ahead and say it will be around $6 million dollars. It's sad that splitting the money, getting $3 million, just isn't enough for her. After the lawsuit and paying lawyers and everything else, she may end up wishing that she had just split the money.

It would have been easily tracked by Aria had they known there was going to be a dispute, but they would have no way of knowing this. Regardless of if she was using a players card, you can look up all recent transactions on the machines. I feel the jackpot should be spit due the sticky note contract.