[AusRace] re annoying odds over 99 pop-up on Betfair

[terry styles]

Hi Len,
 
We are taking about the legal concept of 'unconscionable conduct' which can see an otherwise 'legal' contract set aside by a court.
 
Always at a courts discretion and different outcomes may occur in different jurisdictions on the same facts but the press coverage would be nasty for the parties, and agents, concerned.
 
The margarine example is easily got out of - prices on goods by shops is merely a suggestion - in actual fact the buyer makes the offer and this would be relied upon first. 
 
Terry> From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au> To: ausrace at it.net.au> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:42:05 +1100> Subject: Re: [AusRace] re annoying odds over 99 pop-up on Betfair> > Putting up 1.01 after the scratchings in the CC in the hope some person will> take it, not by design, not through poor judgement, but as a result of> unscrupulous skulduggery is as bad as a supermarket putting Flora margarine> on its shelves at $100 (marked) next to Meadowlea at $2, and when a regular> buyer picks up Flora without looking, he is obliged to pay the $100 at the> checkout; as bad as a bookie putting up 1.01 when others have 81 & 91 and a> punter who asks for $100 on #11 in the reasonable but mistaken belief the> price offered is 101 having to accept 1.01. Bookie banned reads the> headlines.> > We are not talking about my thinking Master O'Reilly is a bet at 5.00 and> Lindsay thinking it is a lay at 7.00, so I take 7.00 - there are no "true> odds" about horses, but there are "not true odds", and 1.01 MO' is not the> true odds, but offered as an entrapment by charlatans.> > We are not even talking about the very early markets in minor races, where> no clear "truish" odds have evolved and Lindsay may be offering 2.50 and I> want 10.00, but a race in which millions of dollars have been wagered over a> period of weeks, and the "truish" odds having been established in> accordance.> > While I agree that Oz, in common with all, or almost all, Western nations,> is becoming too much of a nanny-state, we have for good reason consumer> protection laws to protect those with less "nous", if you like, which> Lindsay, and now Duff, thinks is a justification for extortion by shysters.> Thankfully, no longer can con-men charge little old ladies $20,000 to fix> their sound roof with impunity. But, according to the way I read Duff's> logic, stiff shit little old ladies.> > If BF can call off bets because they were matched after the race started> (because of a BF lapse) or because a tennis player threw a match, they can> call them off because they were the result of entrapment.> > Someone who has been conned is likely to be an ex-customer bad-mouthing BF.> Maybe one of the groups opposing betting exchanges will find someone who put> $10,000 on one of these 1.01 offerings after scratchings in good part> because of a slight delay between brain and mouse finger and fund taking BF> to court - if they do, long odds on BF will lose.> > But most pertinently of all, why do BF allow the situation when there are> easy, albeit imperfect and partial, remedies that have already been> canvassed here?> > I'm not a little old lady, I don't need protection, and unlike Lindsay, have> never made a bet at odds I did not intend, so again, I'm not talking through> my pocket, but see what is happening and the "justifications" thereof as> symbolic of our ever more sick society. People are entitled to think> whatever they like of how I operate, as I am of them.> > > > LBL>
_________________________________________________________________
What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D30288&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Join_free_OCT07&_m=EXT