Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Internet Gambling > Internet Gambling
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-11-2007, 01:16 PM
yingyang0 yingyang0 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 13
Default Re: Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[ QUOTE ]

False. In addition to anything else, there's (sorry, legalese) an implied covenant of good faith an fair dealing attached to the T&C. Proving a violation of this is tricky, but taking your money and not really telling you why (if that's in fact what happened. And no "you be botting" is not really sufficient, IMO) is arguably a breach of this covenant.


[/ QUOTE ]
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a California legal theory that hasn't been adopted by other states and had even been statutorily modified in California. If it's not within the "four corners" of the contract, then it is not there, period. There are many more applicable legal doctrines than this extremely questionable one.

If you cheat and they catch you, deal with it.
If you didn't cheat and they wrongly catch you, then it is on you to prove that you didn't cheat.
For $70,000 I'd be doing more than posting on a forum (that is if I was innocent!).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-11-2007, 02:56 PM
sethypooh21 sethypooh21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: World Series GOGOGOGO
Posts: 5,757
Default Re: Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

False. In addition to anything else, there's (sorry, legalese) an implied covenant of good faith an fair dealing attached to the T&C. Proving a violation of this is tricky, but taking your money and not really telling you why (if that's in fact what happened. And no "you be botting" is not really sufficient, IMO) is arguably a breach of this covenant.


[/ QUOTE ]
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a California legal theory that hasn't been adopted by other states and had even been statutorily modified in California. If it's not within the "four corners" of the contract, then it is not there, period. There are many more applicable legal doctrines than this extremely questionable one.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Off the top of my head the CGFFD is applicable in Alaska, Minnesota and Colorado as well. Similar but related is that an interpretation of the T&C that gives FTP unlimited discretion to seize player funds is unenforceable due to illusory consideration.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.