More Leyser-Gold drama

[VBCardinal]

You're funny DCat.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice revisionism. You said there was not enough evidence of consideration and that Leyser had no case. A real judge with a real degree thinks otherwise. You're lucky he didn't rule for my CTF

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding


[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but I think there is a very good chance that there was consideration here. It is very possible that either: A) Gold made the promise to split the winnings when he failed to find celebrities for Bodog and asked Leyser for help, or B) both Leyser and Gold agreed that they would split the winnings and both try to find celebrities for Bodog. In either of those scenarios there would be consideration.

The evidence for consideration is sketchy and basically just Gold's word versus Leyser's word, but it only has to be greater than 50/50. I think you could make a very good argument that Gold would not have left that message to Leyser if he had merely made an offhand promise to Leyser after the fact.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's withheld a certain amount "for the staff", which basicaly means they can do whatever they want with it. Usually when money is withheld it is specificaly earmarked for the dealers or floor staff, etc. The fact that Harrah's made a point to change this is pretty revealing.

I didn't deal the WSOP and don't know how much they made, but I would bet they didn't get much of the withheld money.


[ QUOTE ]
if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what the dealers made. It is in line with what a break in dealer would make other places. If everyone is happy having the WSOP dealt only by breakin dealers that is fine.

[MiltonFriedman]

"And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is."

Goodsamaritan understates the winning argument:

Whether consideration existed is a matter of fact, the facts pleaded and admitted to by Gold on Rounders sure seem to support the affirmative burden borne by the Plaintiff to show consideration

AND I doubt Gold will have much evidence of a past practice of giving away ANYTHING .... I would request aadmissions and seek discovery of Gold's past tax returns and his bank records since the WSOP.

[NoSoup4U]

I think it is particularly damning that he hasn't paid the other guy either. His argument that he isn't paying Leyser because Leyser made him mad doesn't work as well when he didn't pay the other guy in full.

Gold's biggest problem in my opinion is that his story was obviously BS. He just wanted to give him the money because he felt sorry for him. Absurd. In any context, once the judge or jury decide that you are full of crap and your word is not to be believed, you are in trouble.

The concise summary from the pleadings is persuasive, I think:

[ QUOTE ]
In order to believe the Defendant’s version of events, which is unsupported and is merely a self-serving statement of the Defendant, the Court would have to believe that on August 11, 2006, after being guarenteed at least $1,200,000 in the World Series of Poker Main Event, the Defendant contacted Crispin Leyser, who he had known for one month and who had been repeatedly harassing him during the poker tournament, to confirm his “promise” to Crispin that he would receive half of Defendant’s winnings, and that the Defendant did all of this because he felt sorry for Crispin.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, Gold should try very hard to get Leyser to settle. He can then try to put some face-saving spin on the thing. If he doesn't, he's likely to still pay the $6 million and burn up a bunch in legal fees.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The judge said that Gold's actions don't give Leyser much assurance that the money would be there if he lost and also that he believed that Leyser was likely to win the case.

This is obviously a very good result for Leyser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you feel it! Yea, baby! Who predicted this! Me, me, me! It's all about me being right for once in my sorry life!

<dances around living room like retard>

Just one time, baby!

[/ QUOTE ]

If only you could short Jamie Gold stock.

[steel108]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No doubt about DessertCat, you trapped us....Go give John Chan a big huggle

[/ QUOTE ]

I think TeddyFBI and the others who were WRONG should be forced to let me give them a "Captain Tom Franklin".

[/ QUOTE ]

The only position I've taken in this soap opera is that both sides are missing chromosomes. And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is.
Feel free to resume dancing like a retard.

Good updates, Soup, keep em coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Teddy is right. This is basic 1L Contracts. Without consideration, no contract is binding unless there was substantial reliance. Leyser's lawyers messed up pretty bad on this on. They should have made him buy a house or something to show reliance. I can't really see Gold losing unless there is vital info missing.

[chisness]

Can someone explain consideration? Reliance?

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain consideration? Reliance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consideration is the most important concept. Basically, in order to make a valid contract both sides must give something up of value. If one person is giving something up and the other person is giving nothing, then you are talking about a gift, not a contract.

Leyser says that he found celebrities for Gold and that was his consideration. Gold's consideration was half of his winnings. If Gold agreed to give Leyser half in exchange for Leyser securing celebrities, then they have a contract and Gold will wind up losing $6 million. If he didn't, then he won't.

The most recent court filings suggest that Gold is going to have a hard time proving his story. He claims that he didn't need to get the celebs to get backed by Bodog and that he only offered to give Leyser the money because he felt sorry for him.

He has several material problems with his story. First, the contract from Bodog was sent to him with the contract for the celeb that Leyser arranged. It was all in the same email. That suggests that there was some linkage. Secondly, his own words in the Rounders podcast strongly suggest that Leyser got the celebs to help him get a seat. Thirdly, the phone message that he left suggests that they did have some kind of deal. Finally, Gold's story doesn't much pass the sniff test. He claims that he made a phone call reinforcing his promise to pay what was already certain to be at least half a million to someone who was repeatedly harassing him that he had just met a month before because he is a nice guy. That is a hard sell, I think.

Reliance is a legal concept that says that if you "changed your position" as a result of a promise that someone made you have a claim to enforce the contract.