Skip to main content

View Diary: Dean Chambers Has Reneged. (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Note: Probably no recourse . . . (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Randomfactor, Skipbidder, antirove, elwior

    Virginia Code:

    Virginia Code
    § 11-14. Gaming contracts void.
    Except as otherwise provided in this section, all wagers, conveyances, assurances, and all contracts and securities whereof the whole or any part of the consideration is money or other valuable thing won, laid, or bet, at any game, horse race, sport or pastime, and all contracts to repay any money knowingly lent at the time and place of such game, race, sport or pastime, to any person for the purpose of so gaming, betting, or wagering, or to repay any money so lent to any person who shall, at such time and place, so pay, bet or wager, shall be utterly void.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a contract governing the distribution of state lottery proceeds shall be valid and enforceable as between the parties to the contract.
    •  But the election is not a game, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, elwior

      horse race, sport or pastime.  Although I suppose it's portrayed as a horse race, and we around here certainly treat politics as a pastime....

      •  "Except as otherwise provided . . ." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LeftyAce, Skipbidder, elwior

        means unless the law specifies an exception, it isn't covered.  So the wager exception is not limited to horse, sport or pastime, it includes all wagers, excepting those governing a lottery conducted by the state.  As pointed out below there is also an exception to games of chance conducted in a private residence, however, these kind of contests aren't typically governed by contracts, so it's doubtful that there would be any recourse.

        e.g. if I was playing a friendly poker game, the action would be legal, but I wouldn't be able to involve the state in order to ensure that everyone paid what they owed.

    •  Also Virginia Code: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, elwior
      § 18.2-334. Exception to article; private residences.
      Nothing in this article shall be construed to make it illegal to participate in a game of chance conducted in a private residence, provided such private residence is not commonly used for such games of chance and there is no operator as defined in subsection 4 of § 18.2-325.
      •  I read this exception . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        to mean -- friendly poker game is OK provided that this is done in a private residence and it is not being run as a business operation.  

        However, would this exception allow for an enforceable contract to be part of the private gaming?  You could write a contract, but that doesn't mean that it would be enforceable in court.  I don't see the exception spelling out a right to include a legally enforceable contract.  If I invite some friends to play and one of the players is extended credit by the other players at the table, the only recourse, if the person doesn't pay, is that the person wouldn't be invited back the next time.  I couldn't go to court and try to collect on a gambling debt.  The exception to the law carves out a right to play games of chance in a private residence, it doesn't explicitly provide for the use of an enforceable contract.  Now one work-around might be if that line of credit was tied to some specific collateral.  e.g. so that the context of the suit wouldn't involve gambling, it would involve collection on a debt tied to specific collateral.  But that isn't what's at play here.

        I have no idea what the case law says here.  Maybe there has been some novel legal challenge on the books which would serve as a basis for a new legal challenge, but I doubt it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site