Quote:
Originally Posted by BadlyBeaten
If the Court's use of contract law is correct, then the issue of a "freeroll" is the same as the shopper at the yard sale:
1. If the buyer and seller BOTH know that a Van Gogh is being purchased for $5, then the sale stands.
2. If NEITHER the buyer NOR the seller knows that a Van Gogh is being purchased for $5, then the sale stands.
3. If the buyer knows it's a Van Gogh, and the seller doesn't, the sale is reversed. (Or if the buyer thinks it's genuine and the seller knows it's fake).
So if both parties actually KNOW that the casino will challenge a loss but not a win, then by implication both parties consent. E.g. Ivey impliedly consents to let a Court decide if he keeps his win.
This subject matter is generally known as "indemnification," and is usually found mentioned in partnership agreements. I doubt that many Courts have ever found that indemnification was IMPLIED by the actions of the parties.
An interesting sidebar would be the exact meaning of "...Casino reserves all rights..." which is often found in various spots and could be construed to be part of an implied contract.
That is not what indemnification means. Indemnification is an agreement by one party to reimburse another party for certain losses with specifics depending on the particular deal. This is very common in stock sales and asset sales between the buyer and seller; limited liability company operating agreements or partnership agreements between the limited liability company or the partnership on the one hand and the members and managers or the partners on the other hand; bank loans either between the bank and the borrower(s) or if there is a guaranty and there are multiple joint and several guarantors, then often the various guarantors will indemnify each other in accordance with certain percentages; etc.
What you described is contract law relating to whether an agreement was reached and is a valid contract. Specifically, it looks as though you are referring to the general doctrine of "mistake," whether unilateral or mutual. I think it is pretty uncommon for a contract to be voidable due to a unilateral mistake, although possible. And it is possible for contracts to be voidable based on mutual mistake.
Last edited by Lego05; 10-28-2016 at 11:11 AM.