Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:27:43 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Interesting spread betting case  (Read 930 times)
meanig
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile
June 01, 2012, 12:44:57 PM
 #1

Online bookie can't scoop £50k losses made by 5-year-old. High Court rules the website contract terms were unfair

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/31/high_court_rules_against_bookmaker_in_online_betting_losses_case/

Quote
A man who blamed his girlfriend's five-year-old son for making loss-making trades in expensive natural resources through his online betting account is not bound by a term he agreed to on the bookmaker's website, the High Court has ruled. The term stated that an accountholder is deemed to have authorised all trading made under his or her account number.

....

Spreadex based its claim on a clause in its contract which meant Cochrane would be "deemed to have authorised all trading under [his] account number," a report by legal information service Lawtel said.

However, in rejecting Spreadex's bid for a summary judgment, the High Court said that the clause was not legally binding because it didn't form part of a binding contract and was "unfair". Spreadex was not able to show that Cochrane entered into a separate contract for each trade made via his account and as such the company's general contract applied.

.....

This is an odd case," gambling law expert Susan Biddle of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said.

"It is hard to see how companies can incorporate general terms into future contracts with consumers – unless this case can be distinguished on the basis that the problem here arose because of the total exclusion of Spreadex’s liability in contrast to the consumer’s unlimited liability. If Spreadex had accepted some liability and/or capped the consumer’s liability the contract may have been deemed binding," she said.

"I would not advise businesses to purse summary judgment applications where contract terms are disputed as unfair and the reasonableness of them is at issue, especially when it involves a consumer," Biddle added.

I know Bitcoinica screwed up in lots of different ways but at least this never happened.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481214463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214463
Reply with quote  #2

1481214463
Report to moderator
yanshoof
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8


View Profile
June 30, 2013, 11:37:05 AM
 #2

Sad story.
Thank god most sites are fair.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!