Poker Law

Stump your fellow simians.
swellman
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:43 am

Poker Law

Post by swellman »

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/28/poker.gold/index.html

When he won $12 million in the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas this month, Jamie Gold, a television producer, pumped his first in the air, hoisted stacks of cash over his head, and wrapped his mother in an embrace.

But in a suit filed last Monday, a friend who cheered Gold on claimed he was equally delighted when Gold's pair of queens won the legendary event -- because the men had a handshake deal to split his WSOP earnings.

Crispin Leyser, a British-born television development executive, asserted in the suit that the men had agreed to share a seat at the tournament, and Gold owes him $6 million.

"The defendant now refuses to provide me with 50 percent of the winnings, as we had previously agreed upon," Leyser wrote in an affidavit filed with the suit, which also asks for additional money for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.


A judge in Las Vegas signed a temporary restraining order barring the Rio casino, where the 8,773-player tournament was held, from paying Gold the $12 million. A hearing is set this week.


:o

From my legal training (i.e. watching TV), I understand that a verbal contract is legally binding, but its existence is almost impossible to prove in court. Something is not right here...
gnome
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Post by gnome »

Well, that's the trick isn't it... convincing a jury that there was any such agreement (or convincing the winner that sharing some of the winnings will be less of a bother than the trial).
swellman
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:43 am

Post by swellman »

gnome wrote:Well, that's the trick isn't it... convincing a jury that there was any such agreement (or convincing the winner that sharing some of the winnings will be less of a bother than the trial).
Alternatively, convincing the judge that the case is without merit and should not proceed to trial.