Disputed prop bet

I'll bet on anything if I think I have an advantage, and so will lots of advantage players. As an example, I flew back to Vegas from Reno yesterday. One of many "airplane props" I made with two friends was on the number of passengers out of three in the next aisle to order a drink. I bet under 2.5 people.

The weather was rainy and very windy in Reno that day. Most of the flight was very bumpy. About five minutes into the flight the captain announced that for the safety of the flight attendants there would be no drink service unless conditions improved. One of my friends said that the bets should have no action if no drink service was offered. This possibility was not stipulated in the bet. It is more important that I have a reputation of being a gentleman gambler than to win a bet, so I agreed. After that, the other friend who I had the bet with laughed, and said I was a huge sucker and fool to agree to that condition. He said if he had my side he would have never made that concession. To him, the bet was simply on the number of drinks ordered, and if the flight attendant never asks, then the number of drinks ordered is zero, making the under 2.5 a winner. No drink service was ever provided, I might add.

So my question is, was he right, am I a sucker and fool? What would you have done?

I would have let a friend off the hook as you did. But after all I am a polite Canadian.

You can make over-under bets on total points scored in a sports game. If the game gets postponed and never gets played, then don't all bets get cancelled? No bookie's going to pay off on the under when the game was never played, right? Why should this be any different? You made a bet on drink service, and drink service was cancelled, so all bets are off.

You still have to be a friend first. These are friendly bets. Twists that was not agreed to by all can cause resentment if payoff was demanded. I would never take advantage of a friend in that kind of bet. However, strangers are another matter!

I agree with wildqat. It's the same as sports betting where rain cancels the whole event. It's a constructive condition to the wager, and I don't think you even need to express it in the intial bet agreement.

Plus, friendship is more important than making money.

Ask your second friend what you should have done if the plane crashed.

No action, no question.

The people didn't have the opportunity to order the drinks.

I too agree that the bet should be no action if there is no drink service.
Suppose after the pilot made his announcement that there would be no drink service, three people in the next isle yelled a drink order out to the flight attendant anyway. Would you then consider the total drinks ordered to be over 2.5? Or, more precisely and importantly, would you have paid your friend if he claimed he had won?

I think the sports analogy doesn't apply. If a game gets rained out, it is rescheduled, and the bets remain unresolved until the game is finally played.

The flight was not cancelled. Nobody ordered drinks.

On the other hand, it's hard/impossible to quantify, I'm sure there was a groan when the captain make the announcement. How many people would have ordered?


Yeah, canceling the bet was the right thing to do.

Often such doubtful issues are resolved against the person who supplied the language that was ambiguous. So he who offered the bet is the one who shoulders the burden of having been imprecise, ambiguous or woefully lacking in completeness. Sometimes however it is considered that there was no bet because the two parties intended different terms and there was therefore no agreement.

I noted one Prediction Market that was offering a bet which I felt had been poorly phrased and was certain to lead to confusion. That bet was later "suspended without action" or some such thing. I was not interested in the bet or its subject matter, I had simply noted that a Prediction Market was unlikely to prosper if it did not insist on more precisely worded bets.

Here you have the issues of friendship and also what the law refers to as Force Majeur. A Greater force that intervenes and was unforeseen by the parties. Suppose the Captain had said we've been told we will have to circle the landing field for a few hours so all drinks are free. This might well have prompted a flurry of drink orders due to more time being available and the price being waived. Was this a risk considered when he offered the bet? Suppose that a large number of the passengers happened to be members of the Reno Temperance Society which was dedicated to banning alcohol consumption? Some of those situations are reasonably foreseeable. Some are reasonably foreseeable but require an outside intervention of authority that skews the situation. Its often considered proper to relieve people of their contractual obligations if there was an intervention by an external superior force. So if the flight attendant had voluntarily delayed beverage service due to the bumpy ride, you might have won the bet yet once the Captain made the announcement your friend is relieved of the obligation.

If you had won the bet you probably would have used the money to buy your friend the first round of drinks so canceling the bet probably left you no worse off anyway. Friendship should probably prevail in a situation like this, but let it be a reminder that its best to envision various scenarios and provide for them in the initial agreement. Might save you money, might save you a friendship some day.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think the sports analogy doesn't apply. If a game gets rained out, it is rescheduled, and the bets remain unresolved until the game is finally played.

The flight was not cancelled. Nobody ordered drinks.

On the other hand, it's hard/impossible to quantify, I'm sure there was a groan when the captain make the announcement. How many people would have ordered?


Yeah, canceling the bet was the right thing to do.

Actually, when a game is rained out, the bet is no action and the money returned.

In this case, while it wasn't stipulated that drink service had to be offered from the info we have it seems like that was the *intent* of the original bet. Kind of like "x minutes or innings must be played for action".

Honestly I think it all has to do with you. If the possibility of no drink service came into your mind when drawing the lines, then you should have stuck with the bet. Since it seemed like you didn't think about it, nor did he, no action is the right call.

I think that no drinks are served, then there is no bet, as there is no game. If the FA came on the air and said, "free drinks because it's the pilot's birthday", you would equally claim that there was no bet as the nature of the bet had changed.

for cashing it in to be an honorable bet, you would have had to say "will not buy drinks for *any* reason", maybe even making a note about suspecting a rough flight in your pocket to show later. The kind of bet you probably should only make with someone who does the same sort of stuff and would appreciate the ruse.

since this doesnt seem to be the case, you did the right thing.

Out of curiosity, do you wager large amounts on this sort of thing, or do you keep it lower, "friendly" betting, as it is often called?

Quote: Wizard

I'll bet on anything if I think I have an advantage, and so will lots of advantage players. As an example, I flew back to Vegas from Reno yesterday. One of many "airplane props" I made with two friends was on the number of passengers out of three in the next aisle to order a drink. I bet under 2.5 people.

The weather was rainy and very windy in Reno that day. Most of the flight was very bumpy. About five minutes into the flight the captain announced that for the safety of the flight attendants there would be no drink service unless conditions improved. One of my friends said that the bets should have no action if no drink service was offered. This possibility was not stipulated in the bet. It is more important that I have a reputation of being a gentleman gambler than to win a bet, so I agreed. After that, the other friend who I had the bet with laughed, and said I was a huge sucker and fool to agree to that condition. He said if he had my side he would have never made that concession. To him, the bet was simply on the number of drinks ordered, and if the flight attendant never asks, then the number of drinks ordered is zero, making the under 2.5 a winner. No drink service was ever provided, I might add.

So my question is, was he right, am I a sucker and fool? What would you have done?

Well. I'm a lawyer and this strikes me as entirely a matter of contract law. This is true unless your bet was illegal, which it likely was not, although the law of the state over which you were flying at the time probably applies. If gambling is illegal in that state, the contract is illegal and thus is not a contract at all. If that is the case, as a gambler I must agree with your approach; being gentlemanly is more important than being right in this case. But as a lawyer I must advise you not to enter into illegal contracts.

If the bet was lawful, there are several reasons it was either void from the outset or unenforceable. A classic contract defense is the law of impracticability (or, alternatively, impossibility). Under that doctrine, an occurrence, whether or not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the agreement, which occurrence is material to the negotiations and essential to the performance of the contract by either party, which occurrence does not happen, renders the agreement unenforceable.

A court might also say that there was no "meeting of the minds" or "mutual assent," both which are essential elements of a contract. That would mean the bet was void ab initio. Another court might say that this dreadful cancellation of drink service was simply the failure of an implicit condition precedent to the contract, thus cancelling the contract.

Yet another court might hold that the pilot's cruel and unusual decision to withhold proper libation was immaterial to the agreement, which was a bet to be resolved upon the number of beverages imbibed by certain passengers, which number was zero. End of story. That would be a truly cold-hearted judge, most likely a relative of the sadistic pilot, in which case you should demand his recusal.

Quote: Jumboshrimps

Well. I'm a lawyer and this strikes me as entirely a matter of contract law. This is true unless your bet was illegal, which it likely was not, although the law of the state over which you were flying at the time probably applies. If gambling is illegal in that state, the contract is illegal and thus is not a contract at all. If that is the case, as a gambler I must agree with your approach; being gentlemanly is more important than being right in this case. But as a lawyer I must advise you not to enter into illegal contracts.

If the bet was lawful, there are several reasons it was either void from the outset or unenforceable. A classic contract defense is the law of impracticability (or, alternatively, impossibility). Under that doctrine, an occurrence, whether or not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the agreement, which occurrence is material to the negotiations and essential to the performance of the contract by either party, which occurrence does not happen, renders the agreement unenforceable.

A court might also say that there was no "meeting of the minds" or "mutual assent," both which are essential elements of a contract. That would mean the bet was void ab initio. Another court might say that this dreadful cancellation of drink service was simply the failure of an implicit condition precedent to the contract, thus cancelling the contract.

Yet another court might hold that the pilot's cruel and unusual decision to withhold proper libation was immaterial to the agreement, which was a bet to be resolved upon the number of beverages imbibed by certain passengers, which number was zero. End of story. That would be a truly cold-hearted judge, most likely a relative of the sadistic pilot, in which case you should demand his recusal.

Jumbo, great analysis. I'm only taking Contracts II right now but I agree with everything you said. I think impracticability is the best defense the hypothetical Wizard would have. Arguing no agreement, while admirable in its completeness, is not likely to succeed because there was manifestation of mutual assent to enter into a bargain.

The bargain was made entirely within the state of Nevada where gambling is legal. I don't know if there are any statutes about gambling between two private parties. Jurisdiction in Nevada state court would be proper in this case. (What is the cite for the legal doctrine that the state you are flying over has jurisdiction? Just curious.)

We don't know the amount the Wizard bet but if it was over $500 he would have statute of frauds as a defense because the agreement was not in writing.

I would guess that a court would say that this was a failure of an implicit condition not within the contemplation of both parties, thus voiding the agreement. I think it would be cool to see if there is any relevant case law on this.

-Ted (spending time on this board instead of writing his appellate brief).

Edit: I found some case law about wagers in Nevada:
Although gambling, duly licensed, is a lawful enterprise in Nevada (Nevada Tax Commission v. Hicks, 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852), an action will not lie for the collection of money won in gambling. Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104.

Looks like the Wizard would have no remedy in court. Good thing he took the gentleman's route!

Thanks to everybody who offered his/her advice. Regarding the comparison to a cancelled sporting event, if I was a hard-ass I could have made the argument that posted sports book rules always address that situation, and lacking such a clause would cause the under to win. I like the "Force Majeur" point, I'll have to mentally file that one away. Although the plane should have been over Nevada the entire time, I don't think that would matter. You need to be licensed to legally book bets in Nevada, which I'm not. These situations have happened before, in which case the parties will agree on a neutral third party to render a verdict. I've been used as such an arbitrator as well.

The lesson to be learned, especially by myself, is to try to foresee such things when making the bet, and spell out the terms carefully. It is also good to avoid vague bets. We were going to bet on whether they tell jokes over the PA system (this was a Southwest flight), but decided it could be ambiguous if something was a joke, so to avoid any arguments we didn't bet that one.

Quote: Wizard

The lesson to be learned, especially by myself, is to try to foresee such things when making the bet, and spell out the terms carefully.

This is good! The problem is you can never think of everything. And that unfortunately is where a third party must come in to play (if the parties can't resolve it themselves).

I like the idea of arbitration and am curious about it. Is this a formal process, and do you use the rules of arbitration? Is the verdict legally binding?

This reminds me of the classic Seinfeld episode in which Kramer enters a betting war with a loud-mouthed Texan over Arrivals and Departures at the airport.

Quote: teddys

Quote: Jumboshrimps

Well. I'm a lawyer and this strikes me as entirely a matter of contract law. This is true unless your bet was illegal, which it likely was not, although the law of the state over which you were flying at the time probably applies. If gambling is illegal in that state, the contract is illegal and thus is not a contract at all. If that is the case, as a gambler I must agree with your approach; being gentlemanly is more important than being right in this case. But as a lawyer I must advise you not to enter into illegal contracts.

If the bet was lawful, there are several reasons it was either void from the outset or unenforceable. A classic contract defense is the law of impracticability (or, alternatively, impossibility). Under that doctrine, an occurrence, whether or not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the agreement, which occurrence is material to the negotiations and essential to the performance of the contract by either party, which occurrence does not happen, renders the agreement unenforceable.

A court might also say that there was no "meeting of the minds" or "mutual assent," both which are essential elements of a contract. That would mean the bet was void ab initio. Another court might say that this dreadful cancellation of drink service was simply the failure of an implicit condition precedent to the contract, thus cancelling the contract.

Yet another court might hold that the pilot's cruel and unusual decision to withhold proper libation was immaterial to the agreement, which was a bet to be resolved upon the number of beverages imbibed by certain passengers, which number was zero. End of story. That would be a truly cold-hearted judge, most likely a relative of the sadistic pilot, in which case you should demand his recusal.

Jumbo, great analysis. I'm only taking Contracts II right now but I agree with everything you said. I think impracticability is the best defense the hypothetical Wizard would have. Arguing no agreement, while admirable in its completeness, is not likely to succeed because there was manifestation of mutual assent to enter into a bargain.

The bargain was made entirely within the state of Nevada where gambling is legal. I don't know if there are any statutes about gambling between two private parties. Jurisdiction in Nevada state court would be proper in this case. (What is the cite for the legal doctrine that the state you are flying over has jurisdiction? Just curious.)

We don't know the amount the Wizard bet but if it was over $500 he would have statute of frauds as a defense because the agreement was not in writing.

I would guess that a court would say that this was a failure of an implicit condition not within the contemplation of both parties, thus voiding the agreement. I think it would be cool to see if there is any relevant case law on this.

-Ted (spending time on this board instead of writing his appellate brief).

Edit: I found some case law about wagers in Nevada:
Although gambling, duly licensed, is a lawful enterprise in Nevada (Nevada Tax Commission v. Hicks, 73 Nev. 115, 310 P.2d 852), an action will not lie for the collection of money won in gambling. Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104.

Looks like the Wizard would have no remedy in court. Good thing he took the gentleman's route!

Interesting case you cited, Ted. But, I wonder if that's still good law. Surely the Wizard and others have run into situations where a casino has been ordered to pay a winning wager???

Just one note, before you get to that Contracts II final. The $500 statute of frauds applies only to contracts for the sale of goods, which a bet is not.

Nevada law applies because of the ancient real property rule stating that one's land extends "to the center of the earth and to the heavens." Same goes for a state's jurisdiction.

Quote: Jumboshrimps

Interesting case you cited, Ted. But, I wonder if that's still good law. Surely the Wizard and others have run into situations where a casino has been ordered to pay a winning wager???

Still on the books in Nevada. But just a common law doctrine. I don't have time to search through the NRS right now, but I'm sure there's a statute about it somewhere.

Quote: Jumboshrimps

Just one note, before you get to that Contracts II final. The $500 statute of frauds applies only to contracts for the sale of goods, which a bet is not.

Ouch. That's embarrassing. Guess that's why I'm not a lawyer yet :)

Quote: Jumboshrimps

Nevada law applies because of the ancient real property rule stating that one's land extends "to the center of the earth and to the heavens." Same goes for a state's jurisdiction.

Cool. You explained that better than my law profs.

Quote: teddys

I like the idea of arbitration and am curious about it. Is this a formal process, and do you use the rules of arbitration? Is the verdict legally binding?

The way we handle it is to agree on somebody else to render a verdict. Usually the other person is known and trusted by both parties to be fair and unbiased. There have been arguments about who to use as an arbitrator, because if you know somebody well, you can predict how they will likely rule. If there can't be an agreement on who should arbitrate, then hopefully the two parties would split the difference of the disputed amount. If there is no agreement on that, then you'll have a ruined friendship.

That is why I prefer to take the moral high ground and bend as far as I can to see things from the other party's perspective, and give the other side every possible benefit of the doubt. The down side to doing that too much is you're an easy mark to be taken advantage of. However, I live by the philosophy that it is better to be cheated than to cheat someone else.

Late last year I amde a bet with a friend that Dallss wouldn't win a playoff game. The tacit assumption was that Dallas would play at least once in the post season. I did think about it, so I stipulated if Dallas failed to make the playoff the bet would be called off.

Any bet on the outcome of an event assumes the event will take palce. If it doesn't, then the bet should be called off or rescheduled, should the event itself be rescheduled. A bet on whether an event will take palce (ie, the Cowboys won't make the playoffs, Boeing will not deliver any 787s this year, etc), is another matter.

Quote: teddys

I like the idea of arbitration and am curious about it. Is this a formal process, and do you use the rules of arbitration? Is the verdict legally binding?

Both parties sign a document stating they will abide by the arbitrator's decision - which is then ammended to the agreement. If the loser fails to pay, the winner can take the decision to small claims court, where only the failure to pay, not the original case, is argued.

FYI: The various court TV shows is actually arbitration, dressed up to look like a court, and using a real, former judge, as the arbitrator.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think the sports analogy doesn't apply. If a game gets rained out, it is rescheduled, and the bets remain unresolved until the game is finally played.

Actually, it is possible to have a postponed game that eventually never gets played (it seems to happen mostly in baseball). For instance, in 2008, the Cubs and Astros had a series hurricaned out in Houston that got moved to Milwaukee. Due to the timing, they could only play two games in Milwaukee, and the third game was postponed until the end of the regular season. At that time, the Astros, Brewers, and Cubs were in a fairly close playoff race. By the time they got to the last game, the Cubs had long since wrapped up the division, so that last game wound up not getting played, since it was unnecessary.

Obviously, most postponed games are eventually played, but occasionally you get situations like this.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

The flight was not cancelled. Nobody ordered drinks.

Drinks service is only semi-dependent on the flight going off. Obviously, if the flight doesn't go off, drinks service never happens, but once the flight goes up, drinks service can be postponed if conditions are poor, and cancelled if they don't clear up before starting descent. That's basically where I was going with this.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

FYI: The various court TV shows is actually arbitration, dressed up to look like a court, and using a real, former judge, as the arbitrator.

At this risk of this going off topic, I've always wondered about the ground rules for TV small claims court shows. For example, when Judge Wapner was on the People's Court, he would always site the applicable California laws in a dispute, and then explain how he was applying them to the case before him. However, with Judge Judy I once saw one of the parties try to site a Michigan law (where the parties resided) and Judy essentially said that she didn't care. Not that I watch her show often, but I've never seen her site a law in any state. I think the foundation of her decisions was plain common sense and justice. Am I incorrect? Personally, I liked Judge Wapner's format better, because I was learning something about the law as well as being entertained.

Judge Judy may well use common sense rather than case law. Then again, she may not care about the case cited if the case was out of state. Or, since the show is supposed to mimic small claims court, a domain that typically doesn't use lawyers, you can't act like a lawyer and research case history.

Bottom line: Bust out the TiVo and read the fine print in the credits (good luck with that).


I have seen in the larger fine print that both parties are paid to appear, with adjustments based upon the judgement.

Quote: wildqat

Actually, it is possible to have a postponed game that eventually never gets played (it seems to happen mostly in baseball).

Yeah, baseball leagues play dozens of games, so one less isn't too much of a much. In the NFL with only 16 games, you can hardly postpone one, but cannot afford to cancel one. Even after Katrina, NO played all its "home" games in San Antonio.

Still, I've a vague memory of a pre-season game being cancelled in the mid-80s. It was a hall of fame game, which was eventually called off due to heavy rain. Of course, pre-season doesn't count.