- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
With the benefit of hindsight, Copper should have taken a screenshot. However, the casino only states that Copper played a disallowed game but did not state when the terms were changed or whether they were there in the first place. It is only logical to assume that since they listed a number of excluded games in their mail, those listed at the webpage would be no different. Otherwise, we can accuse the casino of negligence although the same can be said of the player as he didnt check it out clearly. If they changed the terms at a latter date, they should have sent a revised mail to all recipients of the earlier mail advising them of the changes or at least telling them that the terms have changed. If they had bothered to change the terms of this particular promotion, this would have been an easy thing to do.
Come to think of it, this casino has been around for quite some time and they did pay me quick so I bear no grudges against them. Whichever version is correct, the casino should bear some responsibility for not adhering to their original terms of offer stated in the e-mail. This is especially so if the player had not won a lot at the disallowed game.
Come to think of it, this casino has been around for quite some time and they did pay me quick so I bear no grudges against them. Whichever version is correct, the casino should bear some responsibility for not adhering to their original terms of offer stated in the e-mail. This is especially so if the player had not won a lot at the disallowed game.