Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

[Nifty29]

The missing part I a referring to is this player may have been a genuine player who was unlucky enough to get trapped by a term he either did not see or what was not particularly clear. I just think it's a very poor show when these 30% or 70% clauses are not well communicated to the player. I just think more could be done to communicate this piece of information.

Talk about flogging a dead horse.

When you create an account, you have to confirm that you have read and understood the terms and conditions of the casino.

The fact is that the player did not read the terms and hence did not understand them. It is completely irrelevant where the term was placed as the player didn't read them (the general terms). Promotional terms always include statements like "these terms are in addition to the general terms of the casino", so the onus is on the player to make sure they on top of the general terms as well.

As Max said, what more do you want? 26pt font? One term per page and a checkbox with "read and accepted" for each and every term? Come on. It's clear that nobody else has an issue with finding the relevent term so why should an exception be made for the OP? Even a simple "find" query in IE with "roulette" typed in would do the trick - 5 seconds work.


The fact the player did not read the terms is not really important if it was not a matieral breach of the terms. In other words if the outcome would have been similiar had he not broken the term then it's of little importance that he actually broke it.

How do you know what the outcome would have been if the player had not broken the term? Do you have a reality emulator?

It is ridiculous to use this method as the OP may well have placed different bets at different times with different outcomes...and even on different games. Who knows??....which is my point.


Not quite but it is a legal convention that conditions are in the first part of the contract and terms are further down. So it does make a difference where something is in the contract as you would want your conditions at the head.

The thing is you do need a strong level of proof to claim an entire breach of contract. Believe it or not - not reading the terms and accidently breaking them is not always breach of contract.

If you are a judge say the idea is to look at it as what did the parties intend to do? Ie did the player intend to play honestly at the casino? Was the breach intentional or accidental? Has the casino presented the contract fairly and honestly to the player?

As a lawyer, can you tell us about contract law in the jurisdiction where Party Casinois licensed? I'm sure you would have access to that information. The law in the UK is totally irrelevant as the laws are different in every country.

In addition, how can you know the player's intent? Could you see his face at the time? Read his mind perhaps? What does 'play honestly' mean? He used his own money? His own computer??

Sorry, but these excuses are just getting more and more silly by the minute.

Example of what you are saying from the other side:

Let's say you took up a promotion where the casino was offering to add 10% to your winnings up to $1000 in a given period, and you won $10k. You receive your winnings the next day but without only 5% extra. You enquire and the casino says "Oh yeah, that was an accident by one of our marketing guys it was supposed to be 10%. Sorry."

You reply "Well it is listed in the terms and you should honor it" to which they reply "Yes, we know, but we honestly missed the error when we emailed the offer so we are going to go by our intended offer which was 5%"

Are you saying you would accept being ripped off for $500? The hell you would, and neither would anyone else. Why? It is listed in the terms.

So why should the casino be held to the terms and not the player?

You can't have it both ways.

Some people always think it's the casino trying to screw the player......in fact, it is most frequently the other way around.

[maxd]

... I just think more could be done to communicate this piece of information.

And I think the player should have done more to familiarize himself with the Terms he agreed to. When this issue comes to you for evaluation you can argue your side of it as you like. Since we're discussing the issue here as a PAB it'll come as no surprise that I'm happy to run with my take on things for the time being.

That said I have to point out that "doing more" to communicate a given clause in the Terms is going to be a lot easier said than done. I think it's fair to say that there are typically many clauses, all more or less of equal importance. What do you do to communicate them all more effectively? Multi-coloured text? Individual check-boxes? AFAIK there's no obvious solution to this so it tends to default to the common denominator of just expecting players to read the Terms.

The fact the player did not read the terms is not really important ....

And that's where we fundamentally disagree. In a court of law what you say may be perfectly acceptable -- frankly I have no idea but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- but the PAB process is not a court.

We are asked to evaluate cases based on standard practice within this industry and I don't think I'm taking much of a risk in saying that in this industry it matters very much whether the player reads the Terms or not. The obvious reason being that before they are allowed to play they say, in effect, "I have read, understood and will abide by the Terms".

From that point on their compliance with the Terms is expected so yes, actually reading those Terms is highly advisable. And yes I believe this is true regardless of what may or may not happen in a theoretical court room were the case ever to come before a judge which it almost certainly will not. No disrespect intended but day-to-day court room and/or lawyer practice is of limited interest here because this is no court and in no way pretends to represent one.

[hakapuku]

A simple analogy will help to see this case clear. Lets say on some road there is a speed limit sign. But this sign is hidden by the tall trees surrounding the road. So it is hard for driver to see it, especially on the rainy day.
Now if some driver breaks the speed limit on this road and gets fined- will be that fair or not?

[maxd]

Sure, now take away the trees and the rain. If the driver still doesn't see the sign then maybe it's because he's either not paying attention or isn't trying very hard, or both. Either way he knows that if he speeds and get's nailed then "sorry, didn't read the sign" is going to be a piss poor excuse.

[Nifty29]

A simple analogy will help to see this case clear. Lets say on some road there is a speed limit sign. But this sign is hidden by the tall trees surrounding the road. So it is hard for driver to see it, especially on the rainy day.
Now if some driver breaks the speed limit on this road and gets fined- will be that fair or not?

The situation you describe is nothing like the matter a hand IMO.

The terms in this case were NOT hidden......the OP just didn't read the terms properly.

I would assume the only reason a sign would be placed in the middle of tall trees(obviously not on the road shoulder where every other sign is placed ) would be to deliberately deceive the drivers into exceeding the speed limit. Nothing the casino has done has been a deliberate attempt to deceive as the terms were available for all players to read at all times.

[blerko1]

So i think better is paying that player because this terms are created only to make more difficult the play time and " entertainment " for the player.

He take the risk, he come and play much, he win, come on....RULES RULES RULES....if casinos dont respect RULES who can change that????....what players can do to change their rules???? NOTHINGGGG

I think who win much will have always problems with casinos ( when he use deposit bonuses )

Would be great if player put 830 $ and maybe withdraw 40 K......

WHAT RULES CASINO WILL FIND THEM........

I think operators everyday abuse with players....

Shame on those casinos....
thanks for \reading

[Repro]

So i think better is paying that player because this terms are created only to make more difficult the play time and " entertainment " for the player.

He take the risk, he come and play much, he win, come on....RULES RULES RULES....if casinos dont respect RULES who can change that????....what players can do to change their rules???? NOTHINGGGG

I think who win much will have always problems with casinos ( when he use deposit bonuses )

Would be great if player put 830 $ and maybe withdraw 40 K......

WHAT RULES CASINO WILL FIND THEM........

I think operators everyday abuse with players....

Shame on those casinos....
thanks for \reading

What's your point? So you think rules are made to break/ignore them?
Wow what a useless post...

[papadol3]

I did read the terms and condition and to be honest I missed that term, The promotion terms were ok to handle but the general terms were long and I probably missed it, now I can see their general terms actually put you on a no win situation as for almost anything they can blame you of bonus abuse.
I sent Max the terms with this term inside, thats true, I sent it as a proof the word 70 was not even there, I ran a search on number 70 and it was not there, Now I see it is not the number but seventy written in words.
I didn't abuse their bonus thats all I know, finding in the fine print such an important term is the issue here, I will be satisifed with another resolution but not with non payment why not to pay after I wagered so much and the term is not clear and hidden in such a long long script.

[PlexRep]

I wanted to raise a point regarding 'hidden' rules, or rules that people feel are 'buried' or unclear.

Some people here are saying the 70% rule should have been better communicated to the player when getting the promotion. This is great advice.... in hindsight.

What if the player never bet more than 70%, but was a student, and this casino had a 'no-students' clause? Then I'm sure the same people would have said THAT rule should have been better communicated an no mention would be made of the 70% rule.

What if the player was neither a student nor making bets over 70%, but played on a restricted game... then people would be complaining THAT rule should have been better communicated.

The list goes on and on ...

This is why, as a player, you should read ALL the rules before beginning play. Of course not all of them will apply to you, but you need to be aware of the ones that do.

I know what a pain in the a** this sounds like.... I also know that players feel that overall general terms and conditions can be very long winded and often phrased unclearly.

To those with that complaint, I invite you to go to my own site and get the T's and C's. If you can shorten them or make them clearer without opening any doors to potential fraud, then I'm all ears. I've no doubt other operators would also welcome such advice and feedback.

Knowledge is power... when it's offered, take it.

[gaydave]

This was touched on earlier but most of you are not reading the term. Or not the entire term.

The rule does not say that you can't bet more than 70% of the bonus value..... It does not say that at all.

Many of you are just going with it like that is the rule. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.

Here is what it says

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

So then it appears as though anyone can bet 70% of the bonus value or more if they like. So long as they are not using 70% or higher bets to clear the wagering. Doing it once or twice or a handful of times is fine according to this rule.

If the OP bought in for $500 and got $330 and burned through the requirements betting $235 per spin then he broke the terms. If he bet $300 a few times and $250 a few times and $100 a few times and $50 a few times and $25 a few times... and only a handful of times crossed the 70% threshold then he didn't break any term or condition.

It is getting irritating reading everyone quote some phantom term of "no bets exceeding 70%". That is not at all what it says and most of this discussion could be avoided. The question isn't whether the OP made any bets over 70%. The question is did he burn through the requirements by using these 70% or more bets to do so.

THAT is what is written. THAT is what should be enforced. Who cares if he bet it a few times. That isn't against their terms.