Ivey vs borgata part 2
March 27th, 2019 at 4:14:14 PM
permalink
The case if being brought forward for another round of fighting
https://www.njonlinegambling.com/ivey-borgata-baccarat-appeal-filing-analysis/
Interestingly NEITHER Borgata or Ivey was happy with the previous judgement
Borgata wants $30 MILLION from Ivey claiming they should be reimbursed foe fraud because he lied when he said he was superstitious
In the previous case Ivey lost because the judge determined he gained an advantage unintended by casino regulators by turning the cards for edge sorting and effectively marking them
Ivey is seeking a court ruling where in the NJ regulations it says a player gaining an advantage is dissallowed as well as an argument that card marking is deemed illegal but not described or delineated. In essence since the cards were not touched by him how can that be classified as marking under the regs.
Ivey also have an interesting backup argument. The final judgement was Ivey had a contract with Borgata implied simply by playing. I.e. every person agrees to this unstated contract. And Ivey had to return Borgata to its original place or make them whole by returning the money. It was deemed a contract dispute
The case was brought 18 months after the incident. The statute of limitations for filing breach of contract is one year
In essence the original court claim was Ivey committed fraud and cheated. The trial judge disagreed and turned it into a breach of contract. Borgata was passed the statute of limitations for filing such a suit. They cannot file for one type of suit within the limitations and then prevail in another passed the limitations. That would be having their cake and eating it too
So thats where the case currently stands
https://www.njonlinegambling.com/ivey-borgata-baccarat-appeal-filing-analysis/
Interestingly NEITHER Borgata or Ivey was happy with the previous judgement
Borgata wants $30 MILLION from Ivey claiming they should be reimbursed foe fraud because he lied when he said he was superstitious
In the previous case Ivey lost because the judge determined he gained an advantage unintended by casino regulators by turning the cards for edge sorting and effectively marking them
Ivey is seeking a court ruling where in the NJ regulations it says a player gaining an advantage is dissallowed as well as an argument that card marking is deemed illegal but not described or delineated. In essence since the cards were not touched by him how can that be classified as marking under the regs.
Ivey also have an interesting backup argument. The final judgement was Ivey had a contract with Borgata implied simply by playing. I.e. every person agrees to this unstated contract. And Ivey had to return Borgata to its original place or make them whole by returning the money. It was deemed a contract dispute
The case was brought 18 months after the incident. The statute of limitations for filing breach of contract is one year
In essence the original court claim was Ivey committed fraud and cheated. The trial judge disagreed and turned it into a breach of contract. Borgata was passed the statute of limitations for filing such a suit. They cannot file for one type of suit within the limitations and then prevail in another passed the limitations. That would be having their cake and eating it too
So thats where the case currently stands
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
