Man sues California lottery to pay 5 million dollar ticket

His 16 year old son purchased it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-beach-man-sues-california-195657598.html

The lottery needs reform, no need for physical tickets any more, but the lottery is hooked on unclaimed winnings and mega rip-offs. Tickets say all lottery players are subject to rules and regulations, but nobody but the lottery seems to even know what they are.

To make a comparison, if a minor makes a bet in a Vegas slot machine and hits a win of $1200 or more, the casino can and will refuse payment. This I have no problem with. Some may view it as a stingy move by the casinos but I view it as a way to deter minors from playing.

I see this case as more of a grey area. There was human being to serve as the gatekeeper in selling the ticket. The kid managed to get past this gatekeeper, which could be viewed as the Lottery's fault. However, it could still be viewed as an non-valid ticket because it was purchased illegally. Kind of like how if someone steals something, it doesn't mean the property is now rightfully theirs. The argument about not knowing the rules doesn't pass my smell test. Once my wife asked me to buy a Mega Millions ticket in California, which I still have. It won only $2 so I never bothered to cash it but it is here on my bulletin board. It says on the back, "Must be 18 or older to purchase a ticket or claim a prize." Granted, I'm sure few read that, but it would set an awful precedent if rules didn't need to be followed if not thrown in your face.

If forced to a decision, I take the Lottery's side on this one.

Tough one. Depends on if the age restriction was adequately stated. Certainly the seller of the ticket should have known the rules and should lose his license (and refund the ticket) if there was malfeasance. It’s hard to tell age these days. But, that’s why you should check. And, it’s generally more difficult to tell the age of females as they can use makeup. I’m also not keen on the idea that the father sent his son out to buy a lottery ticket. But again, I don’t know the circumstances. When it comes down to a decision; you pretty much have to follow the rules of the game. And, a player cannot use as an excuse that they didn’t understand the rules, whether the game is a lottery, BJ, Rummy, bridge, Go Fish, etc. If rules can be ignored, then APs will have less protection.

My opinion: it's well known nationwide that you have to be 18 to play, and I've often seen it posted. Argument that the store should not have sold the ticket holds no water with me. Sure, they shouldn't have, any.more than beer or cigs. Doesn't mean the kid or his family should get the prize.

The various lotteries keep track of serial numbers of tickets. Virtually all lotto sellers have surveillance. Anybody who thinks they'll get paid a 5m win without the lottery checking the sale is kidding themselves. Hell, a 5K win stops the table for 20 min, a 50k win stops play for 45 min. Checking surveillance tapes, verifying the cards or dice, checking the winner's DL against lists of deadbeat dads or AP or whatever.

No sympathy here. Maybe, just maybe, if the dad is a quadraplegic, and the store has a relationship with the family and knows the kid is shopping for his dad as an established practice....maybe. otherwise, no.

Family should have sold the ticket since it is so well known that minors can't buy tickets or cash them.\

Just what does the lottery have to lose out of this, nothing and they gained 5 million by permitting an illegal sale. Not to mention all the illegal sales that they profit from. The tickets dont have names on them, you don't have to give a name to buy them, only when a ticket is a big winner does the agency care to do any work to stiff someone. In this case a ticket was illegally purchased, but wound up in someone else's hand legally.


The law I wince to say is against them, because the laws are wrong, just not fair for all. In this case the lottery says heads they win and tails you lose. If the lottery had online sales, all these unclaimed tickets would be claimed and these cases would be moot, but it is more important to just bare back exploit people. The 5 million will go to not a single person as it was intended and it's wrong for the lottery to profit from its own negligence as ill-gotten gains. Regardless if the laws were fair, the money should go to someone and not kept by the lottery. It should be forfeited to the players somehow.

If I were an ambulance chasers, I'd be tracking down the next person who bought a ticket in that store. The store owner and the kid conspired to deprive my clients of the ticket they would have received had the kid and clerk not engaged in an illegal transaction.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Regardless if the laws were fair, the money should go to someone and not kept by the lottery. It should be forfeited to the players somehow.

Then who should get the money? You could say to give it to schools, charity, hospitals, jails, or whatever, but the state of California will use it as an excuse to cut their budget by five million. Ultimately, everyone in California, except the winner, benefits from refusing the payment to the winner.

Quote: billryan

If I were an ambulance chasers, I'd be tracking down the next person who bought a ticket in that store. The store owner and the kid conspired to deprive my clients of the ticket they would have received had the kid and clerk not engaged in an illegal transaction.

If the lottery terminals work like slot machines, then the picks on a quick pick are based on the exact millisecond of the sale. It isn't like that winning combination was next in line to be sold -- assuming it works that way, which I would lay big odds is the case. I'm not saying an ambulance chaser wouldn't pursue the case, but he should and probably would lose.

I'd look for a precedent.

Did the kid buy a ticket in that store in the past? Did the kid have a small winner and cash it at that store?

Quote: Wizard

If the lottery terminals work like slot machines, then the picks on a quick pick are based on the exact millisecond of the sale. It isn't like that winning combination was next in line to be sold -- assuming it works that way, which I would lay big odds is the case. I'm not saying an ambulance chaser wouldn't pursue the case, but he should and probably would lose.

Sounds like a scratch off ticket to me. In NY, vendors have rolls of tickets they sell first come first serve. If that's the case, the next person should have had the winning ticket, had the law been followed.
BTW, I found a neat 1939 Treasure Map with Mickey and Donald hunting for clues to get them to the Treasure Island Expo. Came from Lonnie Hammargrens downsizing auction.

Apparently there's no article -- it's just a 28 second video? Or am I missing something?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'd look for a precedent.

Did the kid buy a ticket in that store in the past? Did the kid have a small winner and cash it at that store?

That's the first thing I was thinking.

I'd also try to find a way to show they knowingly sold a ticket to a minor which would not be able to be a winner nor cashed.



Can you imagine if a casino knowingly allowed a minor to gamble, but would refuse cashing out their chips/ticket/etc.?

Quote: billryan

Sounds like a scratch off ticket to me. In NY, vendors have rolls of tickets they sell first come first serve. If that's the case, the next person should have had the winning ticket, had the law been followed.

That's how it is in CA as well.

I remember my Grandma gave me a dollar to buy a scratch off ticket when I was 12 for her! 12! And the clerk sold it to me! The clerk looked at me skeptically at first until I mentioned my Grandma sent me to do it and then the clerk had a look like,"That does make a lot of sense and there was the fact that I had an innocent looking face at 12 that convinced the clerk to sell it to me. I had no idea at 12 I wasn't supposed to be buying Lotto tickets. Grandma's ticket lost, but had it won it could have cost a lot of trouble for the clerk(And MAYBE Grandma)

There is always the Aqueduct Race Track situation from EONS ago: someone young could not make a bet at the two dollar window without being challenged about his age, but obviously young bettors had no problems when it was wads of cash at higher denomination windows.

M Casino once looked up a pilot of a private jet in an FAA database and stopped his slot play since he was 20.

One UCLA student in town for a major basketball game (though he sure looked like his game would be football) presented his birth certificate (just turned 21) and also a Players Club Card. The Floor congratulated him since that particular style of card was atleast five years old.

Quote: billryan

Sounds like a scratch off ticket to me.

Good point. I had a lotto ticket in mind. Still, I hope the ambulance chaser would lose but he would have a better chance than if it were a lotto ticket.

Hopefully Teddys will come along for a real legal opinion.

Quote: FleaStiff

There is always the Aqueduct Race Track situation from EONS ago: someone young could not make a bet at the two dollar window without being challenged about his age, but obviously young bettors had no problems when it was wads of cash at higher denomination windows.

M Casino once looked up a pilot of a private jet in an FAA database and stopped his slot play since he was 20.

One UCLA student in town for a major basketball game (though he sure looked like his game would be football) presented his birth certificate (just turned 21) and also a Players Club Card. The Floor congratulated him since that particular style of card was atleast five years old.

I never liked the fact that a 20 year old cannot gamble in a casino or legally drink. I can SMOKE, DRIVE, have a FULL TIME job, go to prison, , play LOTTO, fight in the MILITARY, have my OWN house, I AM AN ADULT, but I can't have a beer to relax or put a $20 in a slot machine to have a little fun until next year? Get out of here! I always hated that fact!

Quote: beachbumbabs

My opinion: it's well known nationwide that you have to be 18 to play, and I've often seen it posted. Argument that the store should not have sold the ticket holds no water with me. Sure, they shouldn't have, any.more than beer or cigs.

The one difference is there is a huge fine and liability if you sell beer to a minor, and large potential fines with cigarette sales to minors. I wonder if there is anything in lottery contracts risking your license if you sell tickets to a minor. Sure no one is going to potentially die if you sell a kid a ticket compared to beer, but there has to be something in the contract.

Quote: Nathan

I never liked the fact that a 20 year old cannot gamble in a casino or legally drink. I can SMOKE, DRIVE, have a FULL TIME job, go to prison, , play LOTTO, fight in the MILITARY, have my OWN house, I AM AN ADULT, but I can't have a beer to relax or put a $20 in a slot machine to have a little fun until next year? Get out of here! I always hated that fact!

IMO, no one should be allowed to drive until they're my age -- whatever age that is at the time.

Quote: QFIT

IMO, no one should be allowed to drive until they're my age

IMO, no one should be allowed to drive at your age(Assuming it's over 60.) (-;

Quote: Nathan

I never liked the fact that a 20 year old cannot gamble in a casino or legally drink. I can SMOKE, DRIVE, have a FULL TIME job, go to prison, , play LOTTO, fight in the MILITARY, have my OWN house, I AM AN ADULT, but I can't have a beer to relax or put a $20 in a slot machine to have a little fun until next year? Get out of here! I always hated that fact!

At least three states now won't let you smoke until you are 21.

Quote: billryan

At least three states now won't let you smoke until you are 21.

I want to know when tobacco companies will start being charged with murder.

Quote: billryan

At least three states now won't let you smoke until you are 21.

New Jersey Gov Chris Christie just signed this into law yesterday. Largely symbolic other than stopping 20 year olds from buying them, it won't stop them from smoking.

Remember that many/most lawsuits are not filed with the expectation of going to trial and getting a win/lose judgement. They are filed with the expectation of negotiating a settlement (often small to modest). For the organization being sued, they want to avoid:
- legal fees arising from a lengthy litigation process
- the discovery process (you have to turn over all sorts of emails and documents to the other side - a nightmare for some organizations)
- negative publicity (especially, as in this case, if the public will feel some sympathy for the person suing you.)

I would not be surprised if the State Lottery agrees to a small settlement to make this case go away. Better to spend $10,000 to $25,000 now with the condition that the entire family sign a contract agreeing to make no further public or private statements that injure the reputation of the lottery. Everybody wins a little bit.

Quote: Wizard

Then who should get the money? You could say to give it to schools, charity, hospitals, jails, or whatever, but the state of California will use it as an excuse to cut their budget by five million. Ultimately, everyone in California, except the winner, benefits from refusing the payment to the winner.

I'd probably first give it to the father. The winning ticket had to be sold to someone, and it is still the fault of the retailer for selling it and hence, the lottery. That isn't how the law is written, but I think the law is wrong. As I've stated, the people seem to realize there are many things wrong with lotteries, casinos, all forms of gambling, reform is needed, and it will never happen without a grass roots initiative that costs millions per state.

A suggestion would be, let there be a $100 90% return raffle, to which is added unclaimed winnings, denied winnings, etc., above the 90%, 90% of wins $599. This would last about 2 years then the lottery will have no excuse to no longer ignore the internet. Unclaimed winnings would go down millions. It's possible dormant accounts might add up as much, to which they would steal them away with inactive account fees.

I guess it's jury nullification because if the lottery sells the ticket, they have the responsibility to pay it. Self-regulation is causing a lot of problems, gets to the point where it seems the lottery's job is to take what they can, even if it is unethical. I like to believe the government shouldn't be allowed to be unethical, because the people that give it power are ethical. Doesn't seem like there is a real incentive to not sell to minors, the lottery always gets the money when they're sold, keeps the money when they find out a minor purchased it. Kids dont understand these things and are going to play if they're allowed legally or not.

how did the lottery know the kid bought the ticket?

isn't the person who signed the back of the ticket the bearer of the ticket?
I read stories about a person losing their lottery ticket and someone else claims it.

Police in NYC have arrested teenagers for possession. It's usually because the kid is being a dick and doing something else that got the cops attention but its another tool for them to use and abuse.
What stops kids from smoking is the price. $10-$12 a pack and most kids cant afford to start. Heck, that had a lot to do with me quitting. $60 a week adds up quickly.
Used to be the price of smoking for a year was equal to a nice vacation. Now its a car payment, on a very nice car. I know two pack a day smokers who don't pay as much for their rent.

Onenickelmiracle said:
"I guess it's jury nullification because if the lottery sells the ticket, they have the responsibility to pay it. Self-regulation is causing a lot of problems, gets to the point where it seems the lottery's job is to take what they can, even if it is unethical. I like to believe the government shouldn't be allowed to be unethical, because the people that give it power are ethical. Doesn't seem like there is a real incentive to not sell to minors, the lottery always gets the money when they're sold, keeps the money when they find out a minor purchased it. Kids dont understand these things and are going to play if they're allowed legally or not."


The incentive is the store can lose the right to sell lottery tickets if caught selling to minors. That can be tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention how many other sales are generated by the person going into the shop to buy a ticket. Same incentive that keeps stores from selling beer or smokes to kids. It's economic suicide if caught.

The way I look at it is that games must have rules. Now, I can see (as was stated earlier) if a child of a disabled person, known to the seller, was the representative bettor, then you might have a case for an exception. But, outside some exigent circumstance, rules are rules. Following that philosophy is in our favor. There exist cases when casinos actually find oddball reasons to renege on a bet. We cannot demand that rules matter when they are in our favor; but don’t when they don’t. We can suggest to a casino in an unusual case that they make a payment when they don’t have to for good advertising. But, I don’t like the idea of suggesting that casinos have the general freedom to ignore their own payoff rules.

Quote: 100xOdds

how did the lottery know the kid bought the ticket?

isn't the person who signed the back of the ticket the bearer of the ticket?
I read stories about a person losing their lottery ticket and someone else claims it.

Well obviously the lotto agent gets notified the winning ticket has been sold. As I've mentioned, there is a reason the lotteries mention all lottery players are subject to lottery rules and regulations. The rules and regulations are not in the best interest of all clearly. It certainly isn't child abuse if a father granted a child the right to buy a lottery ticket. This actually gives the lottery the power to intentionally void winners, because they could send children in to buy million dollar tickets and remove them from circulation.

Quote: billryan

Onenickelmiracle said:
"I guess it's jury nullification because if the lottery sells the ticket, they have the responsibility to pay it. Self-regulation is causing a lot of problems, gets to the point where it seems the lottery's job is to take what they can, even if it is unethical. I like to believe the government shouldn't be allowed to be unethical, because the people that give it power are ethical. Doesn't seem like there is a real incentive to not sell to minors, the lottery always gets the money when they're sold, keeps the money when they find out a minor purchased it. Kids dont understand these things and are going to play if they're allowed legally or not."


The incentive is the store can lose the right to sell lottery tickets if caught selling to minors. That can be tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention how many other sales are generated by the person going into the shop to buy a ticket. Same incentive that keeps stores from selling beer or smokes to kids. It's economic suicide if caught.

They only pull that on companies they can dominate and overpower. The store selling this ticket hasn't lost the right to sell. If they really don't want minors buying lottery tickets, they institute a policy saying if a minor buys a ticket without breaking any other law doing so, the minor will get a reward of $1000, the ticket seller and retailer both fined $1000, and if the ticket is a winner, the kid gets the money. That works much better and nobody gets a nickel from kids. The lottery is in it together with anybody they regulate and it is impossible to go after a partner without hurting themselves.

LA Times fake news write-up

Facts:

- Father sends kids to buy scratchers at Gas Station using winning tickets as funding.
- Claim no signage in Mobil about legal age to buy Lotto ticket.
- Lotto agent cashes tickets and sells him the winning 5M scratcher
- California lottery withholds winnings due to age of purchaser
- Father sues store and Lotto

Probable outcome:
- Store found liable for selling ticket to a minor and lack of signage (Lotto's responsibility for ensuring retailer has signage)
- Out of court settlement with the Lotto commission
- Out of court settlement with Mobil (probably for alot more money than the State of California).

The kid legally obtained the ticket, paid for it, didn't steal it, didn't show a fake ID, and for all we know didn't scratch it. Tickets do have rules themselves, says scratch the ticket, and if your number matches the winning number, YOU WIN THE PRIZE.

I'll remind everyone again. The man that worked for the lottery in another story, rigged the lottery, bought the winning progressive lottery ticket, the lottery didn't pay it out and didn't redistribute the money afterwards back into the jackpot, and refused to pay the next lottery winner the proper jackpot.

The reason lotteries are state run are because private lotteries were always crooked eventually and eventually banned by law, usually by constitution. Now we have crooked lotteries by law. They regulate themselves, regulate themselves to make their lives easier and more profitable, fairness just a sham.

Quote: boymimbo

LA Times fake news write-up

Facts:

- Father sends kids to buy scratchers at Gas Station using winning tickets as funding.
- Claim no signage in Mobil about legal age to buy Lotto ticket.
- Lotto agent cashes tickets and sells him the winning 5M scratcher
- California lottery withholds winnings due to age of purchaser
- Father sues store and Lotto

Probable outcome:
- Store found liable for selling ticket to a minor and lack of signage (Lotto's responsibility for ensuring retailer has signage)
- Out of court settlement with the Lotto commission
- Out of court settlement with Mobil (probably for alot more money than the State of California).

Quote:

In October, Ward Thomas sent his son to buy five scratchers from a Mobil gas station on Bellflower Boulevard in Long Beach using a dozen other winning tickets, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

After snagging the tickets, the teen went outside to pass them to his father.

At home that night, Thomas scratched the tickets and discovered that one was a winner, with a prize value of $5 million.

That is really bad. If the retailer had told him, no, the father could have come in and purchased the ticket, assuming no competition to be the next person buying a ticket. Cruel, both the child and father seem innocent just playing along with what was allowed, presumably as had been allowed before for them or others. This like China where everything is illegal, people do them anyways thinking it's fine, until one day they get fined, jailed, killed, as the case may be.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

The kid legally obtained the ticket,

No, he didn't. The act of a minor buying a ticket is not legal.

Quote: Wizard

No, he didn't. The act of a minor buying a ticket is not legal.

How many days in jail can he face and how much is the fine? Is the retailer also facing charges?

If a boy puts beer on the counter, the father pays, and the boy walks with the beer, who bought the beer? Is the beer water because the boy carried the booze? Jesus works in mysterious ways, can he do that trick in reverse?

Quote: onenickelmiracle

How many days in jail can he face and how much is the fine? Is the retailer also facing charges?

No fine or jail time to the buyer. Being declined the jackpot is punishment enough. The retailer should face charges for selling a ticket to a minor.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

If a boy puts beer on the counter, the father pays, and the boy walks with the beer, who bought the beer? Is the beer water because the boy carried the booze? Jesus works in mysterious ways, can he do that trick in reverse?

The boy did. The father is an accomplice. It should be the store that sold the beer that should get punished.

Father could face charges for sending his kid to the store. There was a well known case on LI where a family was sending their step child or foster child to the store for beer and cigarettes. Kid got kidnapped and all the adults in the home were arrested on charges of corrupting a minor or something. Turned out her stepdad was abusing her and went to jail for a long time, as did their neighbor who had kidnapped her to save here, in his words.
Father knows what he is doing is illegal, as did the clerk. Kid may or may not.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

The kid legally obtained the ticket, paid for it, didn't steal it, didn't show a fake ID, and for all we know didn't scratch it. Tickets do have rules themselves, says scratch the ticket, and if your number matches the winning number, YOU WIN THE PRIZE.

I'll remind everyone again. The man that worked for the lottery in another story, rigged the lottery, bought the winning progressive lottery ticket, the lottery didn't pay it out and didn't redistribute the money afterwards back into the jackpot, and refused to pay the next lottery winner the proper jackpot.

The reason lotteries are state run are because private lotteries were always crooked eventually and eventually banned by law, usually by constitution. Now we have crooked lotteries by law. They regulate themselves, regulate themselves to make their lives easier and more profitable, fairness just a sham.

The Lottery would be hearing from my Lawyer if I were the next winner and didn't get paid. Like The Rihanna song says."B... Better have my money!" I'd go in HARD if I were supposed to win money for being the next winner and the Lottery refused to give me my winnings.

Quote: billryan

At least three states now won't let you smoke until you are 21.

California, which recently implemented that, at least had the sense to make it graduated, so current smokers between 18-21 didn't have an issue.

Quote: Nathan

Quote: onenickelmiracle

The kid legally obtained the ticket, paid for it, didn't steal it, didn't show a fake ID, and for all we know didn't scratch it. Tickets do have rules themselves, says scratch the ticket, and if your number matches the winning number, YOU WIN THE PRIZE.

I'll remind everyone again. The man that worked for the lottery in another story, rigged the lottery, bought the winning progressive lottery ticket, the lottery didn't pay it out and didn't redistribute the money afterwards back into the jackpot, and refused to pay the next lottery winner the proper jackpot.

The reason lotteries are state run are because private lotteries were always crooked eventually and eventually banned by law, usually by constitution. Now we have crooked lotteries by law. They regulate themselves, regulate themselves to make their lives easier and more profitable, fairness just a sham.

The Lottery would be hearing from my Lawyer if I were the next winner and didn't get paid. Like The Rihanna song says."B... Better have my money!" I'd go in HARD if I were supposed to win money for being the next winner and the Lottery refused to give me my winnings.

Oh my yes, and I'd give everyone an option of heaven, earth, or hell. Something happened similar in a way on a very minor level to which I'll explain.

My brother called the other day saying someone posted online a whole bunch of copper pipes for free with a scrap value of $50-$60 and was right by my house. There are faucets attached, some pipes are painted, etc. So my brother and I get to the scrap yard downtown and neither of us know what we're really doing. I just assume they'll make the best estimate of things, maybe they'll throw in the lesser metals at the higher price. It's noisy as hell there, trucks going everywhere, a real circus. The man gives us some slip I can't read at all besides the numbers on the scale. 35 pounds, I'm expecting $1.20 a pound from what I had heard.

Get to the office a 2 minute drive away. She gives me a receipt for 35 pounds of assorted brass at $.40 a pound. Don't do the math, but I was going to be paid $15. Told the lady it was copper, not brass and explained I didn't know what he wrote because of his hand writing.

So I go back down there to talk to the guy, say wtf, you're trying to **** me. We try grabbing what we brought from the pile of junk, then they explain the rules to me. The spigots, the paint, the lead soldering, changes what is 95% copper to junk. I had broken some pipes luckily just to fit the stuff in the trunk, and detached the copper inadvertently to my benefit. We made a compromise, weighed the different classes up and was able to convert the original $15 to $39. Had I had known better, at home I could have trimmed the copper(which was $1.80/lb grade 1, $1.40 grade 2) to make it $56 I estimated.

What does this have to do with the lottery, is it's an example where the naive and the experienced meet. The lottery anticipates all this stuff, that can be reasoned and judged on what should be fair, making a predetermination of what that judgement should be, extremely skewed to their favor. It's a set-up, they realize things dont actually occur the way they say it should, and when something goes wrong, they use the rules and judgments seeing things the way they want to see them at the expense of someone else. They prepare to skewer the unprepared.

Seems the kid was never suppose to be buying the ticket for himself, to be just a shipper for the father, with the son just doing the leg work with the father being the true buyer. The son was to possess temporarily, but the lottery chose to ignore the transaction had occurred, they didn't follow their own rules, and the pain and responsibility is to be the father's by him, nor anyone ever being paid. Without the rules, it would be clear the father was to be assumed to be the true purchaser, the true holder of the ticket, and the person to be paid. I dont like money changes hands at cruel odds, then when it's pay day, the lottery checks and inspects with a fine toothed comb, searching for a way to renege on what should be simple transactions.

All the rules with tickets expiring, certain games perhaps being confusing, people forgetting, adds up to a lot of money remaining with the lottery. In Ohio over a ten year period, this money never cashed was $270 million dollars! That's a whole lot more in addition to 50% edges more or less they keep, because it's working for them, and really helps the people's reps to do dirty politics overcompensating donors and special interests obviously, in inequitable ways.

Maybe the rules they wrote to serve themselves should be thrown out, couldn't have become a bad transaction without their own role and breaking other rules themselves. Either the man would have come in and got the winning ticket, or someone else would have bought it and the lottery would have paid, but it was the man who possessed it with the lottery's indirect help through the retailer they trusted. The civil trial doesn't have to be either/or, a percentage basis can be attributed and I hope they get the money. You're supposed to think you won the lottery in dreams having it not be true, not in real life when you think everything is kosher and they pull it away from you.

Maybe it depends on the jurisdiction, but in most places lottery tickets are a bearer instrument, and will even say so on the ticket. From my understanding, that means whoever has the ticket physically in their hand can legally get the money, regardless of where it originated or who bought it. I know it's that way in Oklahoma which is why you're supposed to sign the back of the ticket as soon as you buy it to make it that much harder for someone else to claim the prize. I think the lottery commission is simply trying to weasel their way out of this one.

So a 15 year old should be able to tell the clerk " This beer isn't for me, I'm just a shipper delivering it to an adult too lazy to come down here himself. " Or the clerk can say- Sure I sold that kid a six pack, but its intended for his father."

Quote: billryan

So a 15 year old should be able to tell the clerk " This beer isn't for me, I'm just a shipper delivering it to an adult too lazy to come down here himself. " Or the clerk can say- Sure I sold that kid a six pack, but its intended for his father."

The person that sells beer to a 15 year old is liable for the 15 year olds health and safety that derives from the kid drinking the beer he shouldn't drink or buy. They blame the seller and not the kid. In the case of the lottery, they would claim it's fair for them to be immune for their role in the transaction when it's their fault and their responsibility.

You're a real AP Billryan, you wouldn't agree to return money to a casino, because the casino said the rules trumping your play, are the casino never loses, always has the edge, and if it was not the case, you have to return all the money, food, rooms, gifts, at 33% interest. They tell you what happened and seemed fair at the time, isn't fair to them and wasn't supposed to be possible, and it's your fault for taking advantage of the casino that was trying to take advantage of you. They say all casino errors are to be retroactively corrected, as part of the casino rules and regulations you must agree to, to participate and enter casinos, so shame on you for believing things were happening as they seemed to be happening.

The teller gave the ticket to the kid, presumably to be given to the father, and took money for it in cashing tickets. The teller processed the ticket, the kid didn't tie him up, ring up the sale and validate the ticket as being sold legally all by himself. The teller didn't ID the kid, I say it is the fault of the teller for selling the ticket, and no rule should deny the fault. The ticket was voluntarily released by not following lottery rules, and had to be paid to someone by law in the design of the ticket sale.

This is as absurd as slavery laws to me, etc., were back in the day, where we now see it as complete injustice and unfairness. I see it as heads I win, tails you lose, we can agree to disagree.

Sure you don't want to bring Hitler into this as well?

Quote: billryan

Sure you don't want to bring Hitler into this as well?

Hitler I'm sure would agree with you and would like how you follow orders.

Quote: wizardofodds.com, the ten commandments of gambling

2.Thou shalt honor thy gambling debts

A true gentleman honors his debts, especially gambling debts. When making a bet with another person you are putting your honor on the line. If you lose, you pay. No excuses!

Wait, since the ticket was paid for with cashed tickets, a bet was made, can we not say the ticket was Welched on, or the lottery rule is they Welch if they lose?

Is this a secret AP trick I'm not supposed to talk about? You can make bets with minors and not pay them if you lose.

Quote: billryan

Sure you don't want to bring Hitler into this as well?

I heard Hitler was a man of his word. If he ran the lottery, he would have paid the $5 million.

Quote: billryan

So a 15 year old should be able to tell the clerk " This beer isn't for me, I'm just a shipper delivering it to an adult too lazy to come down here himself. " Or the clerk can say- Sure I sold that kid a six pack, but its intended for his father."

It wouldn't be illegal for the dad to drink the beer...