Google "unjust enrichment", "efficient breach" and throw in "tortious interference by third party" if you want some sourced explanations.

If you just want to have an ego
contest with that poster, flame away.

Not so fast, Mr. Gambini.*

Here is how I believe it is supposed to work, after 39 years of practicing law,

First year law school:

The Judge, in a bench matter, looks the evidence, determines the facts, then applies the law to the facts ...

*.... or skip the first year of law school and just watch My Cousin Vinny, probably the best legal movie I've seen.

This gave me a good laugh .

On another note, boy it seems like the last ~300 posts in this thread are the same ~5 people repeatedly re-stating their positions over and over again.

Hopefully we'll get some new developments in the case soon to actually talk about!

Wrong. You haven't been around long . In America we hold you to your word. Nick Marchington isn't a good lad. He made a deal and he reneged on it for a better deal. This is a clear case of fraud by Nick. And he didn't refund the money until after day 1 because he didn't have the funds. This will be super easy for the plaintiffs to litigate.

So then if Nick Marchington doesn't return the money until day 2 then the deal is still on?

Believe what you want.

The evidence on this issue is weighing toward "troll".

No American uses the word, "lad".

Also, contract law in most of the US provides that someone CAN commit an "efficient breach" of some agreements, subject to liability for damages which can be substantial

You are posting my statements out of context. Remove the context and you remove the meaning.

Those statements are in response to Black Aces idea that you can segregate the funds, so that the fungibility of money somehow indemnifies NM against his burden of responsibility to CB because they cannot prove he used their money to enter.

I have already disputed that point and none of the lawyers around here have said that I was wrong or why, although I did challenge them to do so. Since the law is very clear that CB is under no burden to prove that they used his exact dollars to enter, it is enough that they paid him and he did enter, I don't know what the point of this little exercise in "Gotcha" is about. By the nature of the offer and the acceptance, NM has created a debt of care to CB. Legally, by the nature of the transaction of selling them a share and accepting their funds, for all practical purposes he is now entering the event with their money. If the nature of the debate is really then I think y'all need to go give your head a shake, because if I give you money to buy something and you do so, I am going to feel free to say you used my money to buy it, the fungible nature of money be damned.

But again, I suggest that every time I say "He used their money," you read it as me saying "He created a fiduciary duty to them by selling them a share, not ending their contract by common consensus or agreement, not refunding them before he started play, and not getting them to formally surrender their right to the action when he did get around to paying them off, long after the event started," and then we will both feel better.

Not that it matters, but I don't recall any long list of "notable players" who have implied this. There have been some posters who believe this, there have been a number who didn't comment on it, and there have also been a number that have said it's not OK to cancel unilaterally.

I mean, I think this should be discussed on the merits of posters' points rather than by this kind of "appeal to authority", but "Every single notable player who has spoken on this issue has come down on NM’s side" is a pretty bold statement that I think needs to be challenged.

I didn't want to respond to you anymore, but you keep falsely attributing this statement to me. You and one other posted kept screeching about BUT THEY USED THEIR MONEY which isn't an actual legal concept. You're actually arguing that NM was still obligated to play under CB's stake, which is entirely different. At times you seem to understand this, but you and one other poster also keep getting overwhelmingly hung up on the timing of the refund. The timing of the refund really isn't relevant. Here are the relevant questions that have to be answered:

1) Did NM and CB enter into a binding legal agreement?
I think almost everyone understands and agrees that the answer here is yes.

2) Could either party unilaterally cancel the agreement before the tournament began without paying damages?
When a court goes to answer this question, the first thing they do is go to the agreement. There isn't a traditional written contract here. So then they try to figure out what the parties intended. One thing that courts absolutely do use is "standards of an industry" so the testimony that it is standard in poker staking deals to allow backout is relevant, especially since there is nothing in writing to controvert that.

Generally, a party cannot unilaterally cancel without incurring liability for damages. It would be up to the court to decide if poker industry standard overrides the general principle. I think it is about 75% that CB loses here.

3) If NM can unilaterally cancel, are there only certain reasons he can cancel for?
If you're saying he can't unilaterally cancel, you're saying that if he gets sick or his mom dies and he goes home or whatever, he still owes CB money for breaching their deal unless they agree otherwise.

The court could certainly decide that he can cancel without damages in some emergency situations, but not to "get a better price." If they get past 2, I think that is more likely the outcome here.

4) If NM can't unilaterally cancel without owing damages, what are the damages owed to CB?
This is a huge question if the court moves past issue 2. A lot of people are getting hung up on "but he can't get out" without realizing that the law can agree he can't just break the contract for free, without allowing CB a 100% freeroll by awarding 10% when he cashes and them owing nothing when he busts. I feel pretty strongly that, if this question is reached, contract law will state that CB is entitled to their loss at the time of breach, which upthread I mentioned was likely around $500.

Things that would change my mind on that could include: CB stating they still felt action was on; CB refusing the refund on the grounds that the action was on; CB accepting the refund under explicit protest.

Instead of the above, they said they are "disappointed in the result" (that result being the cancellation of their action, what else can it be), never stated "nope the action is still on" and arranged for their associate to take the refund.

It would also be MUCH different if NM actually breached after the start of the tourney. However, the cancellation communication was made in advance, along with reasonable efforts to refund the money. There is 0% chance the court is going to hinge on the actual timing of the refund, which would allow one party to just drag feet on setting the meeting. The parties both knew the deal was off. Also PayPal is absolutely a reasonable repayment option in a deal where PokerStars transfer was also reasonable payment.

Look at it from the flip side. Imagine that CB hasn't paid NM yet. They arrange to deliver $1200 on Day 2 of the main for their 10% of action. But they tell him 5 days in advance, sorry, we can't do it, action is off. The meeting is cancelled. Clearly here, action is off. If NM plays, ruling otherwise just results in him suing CB for $1200 if he busts, and if he cashes, owing nothing since "you guys said action is off."

From the link above:

6. It is my understanding of the staking industry that any poker player can cancel any staking arrangement, at any time before a given poker event starts, by simply giving notice of his/her intent to cancel and then refunding the monies as soon as may be practicable.

7. While cancelling staking agreements is often perceived as impolite and discourteous, it is generally understood as being permissible in nature.

Copies of a statement affirming the above element of a staking deal were submitted by Matt Glantz, Matthew Stout, Jonathan Little, Barry Woods, Jason Bral, and YouStake founder Scott Hansbury.

Bryn Kenney has also stated that NM could absolutely cancel.

I prob go
1. My cousin vinny
2. A few good men
3. To kill a mockingbird

But might be forgetting others

Yup

The danger in this case actually coming before a judge is that the judge WON’T use the standards of the industry, but instead interpret this as any other contract for purchasing services. But if a poker staking contract is interpreted like this, it is likely that any player would be in breach of their contract if they don’t play the tournament.

The people arguing for CB’s position aren’t actually suggesting the judge should interpret this like any other contract (that the player is obligated to fulfill the contract once the money is accepted), nor are they following the standards of the industry (that the player may cancel at any time prior to entering). They are making up their own interpretation relying on a bunch of technicalities and exceptions which isn’t grounded in anything.

SimpleRick was simply replying to a post by an English guy who used the word "lad".

They acknowledged multiple times the action was cancelled and they just wanted refund. I offered a small amount of interest but they did not want it, 'all we want is $1200, our booked action back'. After I gave them one payment option for that day and made it clear cash that day was difficult they said 'ok. tomorrow we'll have our guy meet you for the $1200 cash. what's the best way to get in contact?' They did not say I had to pay back cash that day or your action is still booked, on the contrary they reminded me we are cancelled. Again $1200 cash the next day was mutually agreed. I then paid the refund to their associate on the terms we agreed the next day. I was low on cash and have a UK Student bank account which has a low ATM limit/ day. They also paid for the piece online. I was moving hotel and playing the main within 2 hours of the conversation where we negotiated the refund terms.

My cancellation message sent at 2am on July 3rd started with- 'Hi guys, I am playing the main event but unfortunately your piece is cancelled.' I played the main on July 4th (1b)

'Nick, all we want at this point is to take our money back and be done with this situation. please leave your contact information here so that we can arrange a swap. the action is cancelled so we would like our money back ASAP and we can have a horse meet you today at whatever casino you are playing at'

On July 4th after I sent a salty message about them posting negative feedback the night before. The refund method was organised within 2 hours of this message. This all happened before the start of play.

Agree with this analysis pretty much in lockstep

Issues in the case will be:
1. Can they back out
2. If the answer to 1 is no, how much damages do they owe

Issues will not be:
1. When the refund was paid
2. Whether he intended to play the main at the time he cancelled his action

Regarding the damages, issues for that will include the timing of the backout (why black aces thinks NM will owe $500), whether their acceptance of the refund constitutes willfully giving up a claim to his action (which is my one disagreement with black aces whereas I think NM will owe $0, although haven't seen all their texts and very much depends on them), or whether they are entitled to 10% of their winnings (which neither of us agree with but is definitely a possibility)

I mentioned in the wall of text that I think NM owes $0 75% of the time, because of the lack of cancellation terms in the contract and the fact that courts will use "industry standards" to fill in terms that aren't specified. I think industry standard is that either party can cancel pre-tourney.

I think the $500 only comes into play if the court doesn't use industry standards, and so they say that CB is entitled to damages. I think they could get 10% if the backout was after the tourney began (or maybe if they made clear their position was action is on/refused refund/accepted under protest).

So I agree that the most likely outcome is NM owes $0, especially if Nick's above statement of "we don't want interest, we just want our action back" is accurate.

Proof CB sent this message before the tourney began and that you refunded the $1200 is absolutely 100% GG CB. The case won't survive a summary judgment motion and NM may be entitled to attorney fees depending on if Nevada has a frivolous lawsuit statute.

There was a list that was in the lawsuit as Black Aces commented below. OK is a vague word. Have you heard any notable player that said it is not permissible to cancel a staking arrangement, or just heard players that said it's not ethical to cancel? I don't remember reading any notable player that has said it's not permissible to cancel a stake.

I said you said but previously you said: I said: You said: So please don't tell me that you did not advance the arguement that NM ca somehow segregate his funds. Also, you have not addressed this point: There is NO legal requirement that NM use the exact same money that CB sent him in order to prove that the funds were offered and accepted in return for a 10% share of NM's Main event action. And there is no burden on CB to prove that their funds were directly used to enter the event. The fact that CB paid NM the agreed amount for the share is enough to create a burden of responsibility.

Furthermore, your assertion here is demonstrably incorrect, and there are an endless number of cases where people running lottery groups have been found to owe group members full shares of lottery winnings after claiming that the tickets in question were not purchased with group members funds. "These were my tickets, not the groups tickets" is probably the most common thing that ticket holders say when they try to screw the members of the group, and it rarely flies.

Anyway, you're the lawyer. Imagine standing in front of a Judge and making this argument: "It's true that my client received funds from the Plaintiff in return for a share, and it's true that my client did in fact enter the event, and it is true that my client did not reimburse the Plaintiff before the event started. But my client did not use the Plaintiff's funds to enter the event because money is fungible."

Really appreciate Black Aces great analysis throughout this thread.

Not shocking at all the Simple Rick simply has no clue what he's talking about, yet talks with such conviction. I'd ask to bet him $ on the outcome of the case, but he went busto a few months ago so unfortunately that can't happen.

No ****. This is what I, and everyone non-Simple, on this thread responded to your comments about him 'using their money.' It's also why your looking to the date of the refund is literally meaningless. I never said that you could get out of an agreement by saying "I didn't use your money to buy in." I said you couldn't force the agreement by saying "But you used our money!" based on meaningless things like refund date or NM's alleged financial status. "Using their money" is a worthless concept that YOU introduced to the thread and Simple latched on.

What you said above is enough to create an agreement. We all agree one was created. We have moved on to when the agreement was terminated, and if there are legal ramifications and, if so, what they are.

Hahaha yes obviously if you pay me $50 for lotto tickets, we all agree you have 50 lotto tickets, and I buy 101 tickets, and one hits, I can't say "oh you bought the losing 50 tickets." Literally not one person here thinks you can do that. That's not at all close to what happened here.

If you want it to match, this would be like you give me the $50 for lotto tickets, and I tell you before purchasing the tickets "hey sorry, I don't want to do the lotto tickets" and you say "OK, give me back my $50" and I give you back your $50 after I buy the tickets, but before the drawing.

In your little strawman monologue you left out "and the plaintiff said they agree the action was canceled before the event began and we worked out a refund, and the plaintiff was refunded before the outcome of the event was determined."

And you left out that the "CB agreed to refund and cancel" narrative is a false one, because CB only agreed to cancel and refund when they thought NM was not playing (Quote "Sucks that you have to skip the main,") and that as soon as they realized that NM was actually playing they adamantly asserted their right to the share they had bought and paid for.

If I am not mistaken you also posted in this thread that they can accept the refund without surrendering their right to sue. So.

The least you could do is backtrack on your claim that I falsely attributed a statement to you, since despite your denial you obviously said it. Easier to just attack me about something else I guess.

That doesn't seem to be what happened per this post from Nick:

I'm sure the courts will not just think but cite the law and determine if the player has a right to unilaterally back out.

If he unilaterally backed out, that doesn't make a backing agreement illusory, it makes it valid until one party voids the agreement.

The courts will examine the relevant law and determine if one can do that, if the courts agree that the staker did not accept the player backing out.

This might depend on the facts we don't know. Is it important under the law that the staker:

1. accepted the money

2. did w/e they did with the money instead of putting it in escrow (unless they did).

It doesn't look good for the staker that the left feedback and then deleted it when he went deep, if that's true. It's seems to be to be trying to act deceptively. It also seems to admit that by leaving feedback and taking the money they agreed to cancel the deal, otherwise why would they delete the feedback?

What right to stake the player does the staker have after they cancelled the deal? Is this a principle of law? Right of first reinvestment? I am not familiar with this principle. It might be the right thing to do, but you need to remember this is a legal system. Such a rule would be impossible for courts to enforce. In a world with many investors and many broken deals, the cost of enforcing deals would be so high no one would make deals if the courts are as nitpicking as you suggest.

The deal was void unless .... a million reasons. Great legal system you have in mind there.

Keep it simple. Can you unilaterally break a deal? If not, did the staker agree to break the deal.

If not, what are the damages? That's it. You don't get "but he said that ...."

Right to sue is not right to win.

so now you say this but when you discussed it before you said this: Why did you bring that up at all, let alone make the point "Who is to say he used any of their $1200 to buy in and not his existing $10k? " if it is not an issue? and why did you disagree with me when I said I don't think NM can argue "Oh, I used MY $10000 for the ticket, and I only used his for hotel and meals," to which you said quote "it just doesn't work that way. Money is fungible." Just wondering.

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse/trolling, or do you not understand the concept yet? Seriously stop asking questions regarding fungibility of money. It has no bearing on the case. He brought it up in direct response to someone that didn't understand fungibility of money, so he explained it to them. Instead of assuming people are wrong, try to really read and understand the words they are saying, as they have explained the concept in many different ways with different words, different examples, all correctly.

I don't think we have to take NM's word at face value. He has proven himself to be an unethical person. Maybe he's a liar too, or maybe not, who knows? What he says is only the "He said" part of a "he said, they said" dispute.

All we actually have to base our opinions on is the incomplete text chain, which does not include anything indicating that CB's attitude was "GL HF pay us when you can."

Based on the texts that we can see, the idea that CB agreed to surrender their right to a share is a false narrative. CB obviously don't think that anything they did included surrendering their right to sue.

Seriously, you are the guy who thinks if I give you money to buy something, I can't say you used my money to buy it, because money is fungible. Don't tell me that I am obtuse.