Bob Nersesian guest again
Quote: AxelWolfIf one of them knew there was a chance the casino wouldn't cash the chip, and the other guy didn't, then I think it's on the guy who had this information.
If the guy accepting the chip knew there was a chance he couldn't cash it, then I think he accepted the responsibility.
If neither of them knew this was remotely possible, I don't know what to say. I think it would be unfair that one person gets hit for the entire 5k. However, if it was a loan originally, then the guy who got the loan should realize the other guy was doing him a favor making a loan in the first. Had he not had to loan the guy money they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. I think the person who received the loan should take a bigger hit, but not for the entire amount.
Yay We agree fully :)
Quote: RSI don’t know nor care who Vito Corleone is.
Um how old are you?
(Do you own a DVD player?)
Quote: darkozAre you certain the law provides no guarantees? You have legal precedent by way of example?
There seems to be a misunderstanding that if there were no express agreements made between the parties then the chip is given as is. Usually its the opposite in court of law. WITHOUT an express agreement for this situation both parties have legitimate arguments and most likely both will split the difference depending on jurisdiction and judge.
No express agreements does not make a matter of dispute easier. Quite the opposite
The essential elements of a contract are, 1) Parties capable of contracting; 2) Their consent; 3) A lawful object, and 4) A sufficient cause or consideration.
This chip given as satisfaction of a debt has met these 4 requirements. The contract would be considered performed and that is the end of the matter. In legal parlance, it is discharged by performance. This is a basic tenet of business law.
Suppose I want to sell you a painting and we agreed to a price of $5,000. You pay me the $5,000 and I give you the painting. Then shortly thereafter, upon deeper investigation, you determine that the artwork is only worth $3,000. Would you be able to come back to me and say that I owe you $2,000 and that I should have known that the painting was only worth 3,000? Of course not.
The law makes no guarantees that the amount of consideration is appropriate for what it is being exchanged for.
Once Mr. Dalla accepted the $5,000 chip as repayment of the debt the contract was discharged.
Quote: GreasyjohnThe essential elements of a contract are, 1) Parties capable of contracting; 2) Their consent; 3) A lawful object, and 4) A sufficient cause or consideration.
This chip given as satisfaction of a debt has met these 4 requirements. The contract would be considered performed and that is the end of the matter. In legal parlance, it is discharged by performance. This is a basic tenet of business law.
Suppose I want to sell you a painting and we agreed to a price of $5,000. You pay me the $5,000 and I give you the painting. Then shortly thereafter, upon deeper investigation, you determine that the artwork is only worth $3,000. Would you be able to come back to me and say that I owe you $2,000 and that I should have known that the painting was only worth 3,000? Of course not.
The law makes no guarantees that the amount of consideration is appropriate for what it is being exchanged for.
Once Mr. Dalla accepted the $5,000 chip as repayment of the debt the contract was discharged.
Why did you feel it necessary to change the dollar amounts in your example?
I think if i paid you $5000 for a painting and it turned out to be totally worthless, not worth toilet paper I would have some legal cause for fraud
Quote: darkoz
I think if i paid you $5000 for a painting and it turned out to be totally worthless, not worth toilet paper I would have some legal cause for fraud
None at all unless the painting was misrepresented to you.
Quote: GreasyjohnOnce Mr. Dalla accepted the $5,000 chip as repayment of the debt the contract was discharged.
I think it depends on the words exchanged with the chip was exchanged. If there were no words at all, then I don't think there was a "meeting of the minds," which is a requirement for a verbal agreement to hold water.
Quote: DRichNone at all unless the painting was misrepresented to you.
And if someone represents a painting is worth $5000 and it is not how is that not a misrepresentation?
At any rate I would think paintings (which have a malleable value. That is they can rise and i suppose fall based on different factors) is not a good example for a case involving a casino chip
There is an expectation that a $5000 casino chip is worth $5000 expected value at all times
Can we agree on that?
If a $5000 chip turns out to be worthless then IMO it was misrepresented
Quote: darkozAnd if someone represents a painting is worth $5000 and it is not how is that not a misrepresentation?
At any rate I would think paintings (which have a malleable value. That is they can rise and i suppose fall based on different factors) is not a good example for a case involving a casino chip
There is an expectation that a $5000 casino chip is worth $5000 expected value at all times
Can we agree on that?
If a $5000 chip turns out to be worthless then IMO it was misrepresented
By selling a painting for $5000 is not the selling party representing that it is worth $5000. The buyer is representing that it is worth $5000.
It is analogous to a bad check; if it cannot be exchanged for cash the debt is not discharged.
But this is the same as the "fake" chip (i.e. a chip he can't cash). Are you arguing both sides now? =PQuote: RSWhat happens to the other $4,400? But we’re definitely not even for the $600 of fake bills (unless I said it’s cool you give me fake bills).
I think there are VERY good points on BOTH sides and this is clearly a sticky situation.
Quote: DRichBy selling a painting for $5000 is not the selling party representing that it is worth $5000. The buyer is representing that it is worth $5000.
Yea i get that the artworld is different. Which is why i say this is apples and oranges
"I have a $5000 casino chip. By you buying it you are declaring it is worth $5000"
That doesnt sound a little funky to you
Quote: darkozYea i get that the artworld is different. Which is why i say this is apples and oranges
You are the one that brought up the argument of the painting.
Quote: DRichYou are the one that brought up the argument of the painting.
I was responding to an earlier post from greasyjohn
Quote: RomesBut this is the same as the "fake" chip (i.e. a chip he can't cash). Are you arguing both sides now? =P
I think there are VERY good points on BOTH sides and this is clearly a sticky situation.
A fake chip and a chip you can’t cash aren’t the same thing....sigh
Quote: darkozUm how old are you?
(Do you own a DVD player?)
I’ll just say comparatively, Romes is old af. :)
I’m a peasant who hasn’t held anything beyond a black chip.
Depends on the shop. Some places do have RFID/etc in big denom chips. I've been to others that don't. Not sure what the 'standard' is for vegas casinos (strip vs non strip, etc).Quote: gamerfreakDo large denomination chips have a serial number (if not RFID)?
I’m a peasant who hasn’t held anything beyond a black chip.
Assuming it's being used to pay off a debt or in trade for something.
IIRC in the original story the chips were a donation for a church or something like that(?)
In a legal sense, I'd assume that means the payment from the debtor was never paid, because he used a method that is not considered payment?Quote: AxelWolfIf the 2 guys involved wanted to sue each other in small claims. Since gaming says chips can't be used as legal tender (is that a law or just a rule?) wouldn't a small claims court say they can't enforce anything involving the chip either way?
Quote: AxelWolfIf the 2 guys involved wanted to sue each other in small claims. Since gaming says chips can't be used as legal tender (is that a law or just a rule?) wouldn't a small claims court say they can't enforce anything involving the chip either way?
Assuming it's being used to pay off a debt or in trade for something.
IIRC in the original story the chips were a donation for a church or something like that(?)
If the two guys are suing the casino you may be correct
If one is suing the other then its probably what romes said above
The problem is this would be a pyrric victory as it would cost as much as the chip is worth. That's why small court would be best.
I think its safe to surmise no one would purposely accept a chip as payment if they thought it had no value
I think that would stand pretty strongly to misrepresentation in a court of law
I still feel a debt is owed by the original person to Nolan
The original owner of the chip may have grounds to sue the casino. According to wizards post the gambling statutes say the chip can only be cashed out by the person who obtained it originally
Eventually someone purchased it and that person would have right to sue
...IF they have individual tracking on each chip of that value, and can prove that there was somehow fraud that cost the CASINO any value on it...
...IF they have had a cage robbery, or pilferage of that denomination chip...
...IF they are aware that there was criminal activity for which that chip is somehow representing washed or extremely portable money (as opposed to the bulk 50 100s make...
THEN Maybe they don't owe the money to the person who presents the chip for redemption. Maybe.
But they sure as hell owe it to someone. They don't get to simply squat on it when it was validly changed to start.
If that's what the current law allows, the law needs to change. I don't care if it's Judy, (the late) Wapner, or Clark County court. That is simply unfair. Wherever that chip was purchased, by whomever, that transaction needs to back up to someone legitimately able to claim it from the cage, and they need to pay it in full.
This has made me madder and madder over the last several days, as you guys have brought more details forward.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm still having a problem with the casino refusing to honor a non-counterfeit chip for which they received good money.
...IF they have individual tracking on each chip of that value, and can prove that there was somehow fraud that cost the CASINO any value on it...
...IF they have had a cage robbery, or pilferage of that denomination chip...
...IF they are aware that there was criminal activity for which that chip is somehow representing washed or extremely portable money (as opposed to the bulk 50 100s make...
THEN Maybe they don't owe the money to the person who presents the chip for redemption. Maybe.
But they sure as hell owe it to someone. They don't get to simply squat on it when it was validly changed to start.
If that's what the current law allows, the law needs to change. I don't care if it's Judy, (the late) Wapner, or Clark County court. That is simply unfair. Wherever that chip was purchased, by whomever, that transaction needs to back up to someone legitimately able to claim it from the cage, and they need to pay it in full.
This has made me madder and madder over the last several days, as you guys have brought more details forward.
One thing I do understand is why the casino would be skeptical about a person who they have no record of ever having walked away from a table with a 5k chip , trying to cash in a 5k chip. So if they ask the person , and the person says “so and so gave it to me as a debt payment”.. then the casino can check that persons record and say ok yes that person did win a 5k chip which we have no record of him ever cashing , so this is legit. Then give the person the cash and record the chip as having been cashed. Seems simple. Unless the chip had been passed from person to person 5 or 6 different times between when it was originally won and when it’s attempting to be cashed
Let’s say I buy into a roullete table for $100, get lucky and win $5000, walk away with a 5k chip, and then it falls out of my pocket and I lose it and never find it. Then I go to the cage and tell them this story , they can easily look me up and see I did indeed win a 5k chip , I did not cash it , but they sure as heck aren’t gonna pay me my 5000 cash just based on that
I wonder if they would cash it if the original person who won the chip came to collect on it? In the Dalla case do we know if this was tried?
Quote: DRichI agree with others that the casino should not profit by withholding the chip.
I wonder if they would cash it if the original person who won the chip came to collect on it? In the Dalla case do we know if this was tried?
The name of the person who gave Dalla the chip showed that he also had no recorded gaming history. He would not be able to cash it
We can surmise the history of the chip was through multiple owners
To this day the casino has not honored the chip
