Scanning scratch-off lottery tickets
Keith F. Lynch
ways of non-destructively scanning scratch-off lottery tickets to
see which ones are winners. A night clerk at 7-11 might use such a
method to determine which of the tickets he has in stock he should
buy for himself.
It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
This can't really be legal, can it? Have there been any successful
prosecutions in Virginia? In any other state? Or has nobody ever
figured out a way to non-destructively scan such tickets?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
JSmith
> In another newsgroup, there's been discussion of possible high-tech
> ways of non-destructively scanning scratch-off lottery tickets to
> see which ones are winners. A night clerk at 7-11 might use such a
> method to determine which of the tickets he has in stock he should
> buy for himself.
>
> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
> any law against it here in Virginia.
I don't know anything about Virginia law, but I can tell you that this
has caused a lot of controversy in the last few years in Ontario. I
think it would be covered under fraud laws but the problem is, done
right, it is very hard to detect. It is not very high-tech - the
method I've seen described involves a few pinpricks on the bar code
area of the ticket. (The bar code is what really determines whether a
ticket is a winner - the fancy patterns and matchings have nothing to
do with it.) If you know where to look, it is pretty easy to find a
very likely winner, and the resulting pinpricks are virtually
invisible. A clerk sitting behind a counter with nothing to do most of
the time is in a pretty tempting position. (They claim to have changed
the bar code system in the last couple of years to make it more
difficult.)
(Another concern about lotteries here has been retailers stealing
winning tickets when they are submitted for checking. A guy was just
convicted and given a long jail sentence for that a few days ago, and
there have been several other cases proven in the past few years.
They've now changed the checking systems to make it a lot harder, but
it seems to have been a very common occurrence until fairly recently.
And, our lottery corporation has been in the news a lot lately for
their astonishingly generous expense accounts, car allowances, team-
building retreats to the Caribbean, etc., etc. - the directors managed
to win the lottery without the nuisance of having to line up to buy
tickets.)
Lotteries are rightly described as a tax on stupidity. A way to buy $5
bills for $10 each.
slide
> In another newsgroup, there's been discussion of possible high-tech
> ways of non-destructively scanning scratch-off lottery tickets to
> see which ones are winners. A night clerk at 7-11 might use such a
> method to determine which of the tickets he has in stock he should
> buy for himself.
>
> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
> any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
> section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
>
> This can't really be legal, can it? Have there been any successful
> prosecutions in Virginia? In any other state? Or has nobody ever
> figured out a way to non-destructively scan such tickets?
Laws can't possibly keep up with every nuance of how people try to cheat
to get ahead and that's what this is - a cheat.
No, I don't think it legal. It probably falls afoul of the terms the
contract the lottery ticket issuer has with the ticket vendor, but it
also is, IMO, clearly a fraud.
It is so because the proper and expected method of finding a winning
ticket is to remove the coating or whatever rather than mass scanning
unsold tickets. So the non-purchaser scanning tickets to then determine
which ones to buy is clearly using unfair methods to achieve personal
financial gain AND also deprive purchasers of tickets their fair chance
to get a winning ticket.
Timothy
> ways of non-destructively scanning scratch-off lottery tickets to
> see which ones are winners. �A night clerk at 7-11 might use such a
> method to determine which of the tickets he has in stock he should
> buy for himself.
>
> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. �But I can't find
> any law against it here in Virginia. �I think it would be in either
> section 18 or section 58. �The complete code of Virginia is online athttp://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
>
>
That statute merely allows the lottery commission to set rules for the
lottery: it doesn't contain an exhaustive list =of everything which
might or might not be forbidden. The standard contracts which
retailers have to sign contains a provision stating that the retailers
(and their employees) "[must not] attempt, through any means
whatsoever, to identify or otherwise determine whether any unsold
ticket contains a winning play."
I would be shocked if scanning unsold lottery tickets was not a
crime--- but even if it isn't a crime, the lottery absolutely still
has the right to forbid retailers from doing this.
Cy Pres
> ways of non-destructively scanning scratch-off lottery tickets to
> see which ones are winners. A night clerk at 7-11 might use such a
> method to determine which of the tickets he has in stock he should
> buy for himself.
> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal.
It's stealing. Stealing is illegal no matter what method is used to
do it. Just because there is no specific law against magnetizing ping
pong balls used in lottery drawings and then using magnets to ensure
that one's chosen number wins does not mean that it is legal to do
this.
There are also likely laws, related to the lottery, against corrupting
or tampering with it in such a way as to change the odds in one's
favor, whatever means one uses to do this.
The line may be fine in some cases, but taking extraordinary measures
to determine winning tickets would probably qualify.
There may also be a law or regulation which forbids sellers of lottery
tickets from collecting winnings from them. I know many radio station
contests and things of the like do not allow employees of the radio
station to win the contests. This gets around the "insider problem,"
because nobody in a position to tamper with the contest is allowed to
win it. Of course, the less stupid insider is going to share his
information with an outside co-conspirator in return for a share of
the swag.
In any case, behavior like this would probably be covered under the
plain old vanilla larceny and/or fraud statutes, even in the absence
of more specific laws.
Michael Benveniste
news:hvmkhr$nc3$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
> any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
> section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
Did you look at section 18.2-327?
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-327
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
mm
<ppos...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>And, our lottery corporation has been in the news a lot lately for
>their astonishingly generous expense accounts, car allowances, team-
>building retreats to the Caribbean, etc., etc. - the directors managed
>to win the lottery without the nuisance of having to line up to buy
>tickets.)
Not surprising, considering there's a 50% take.
And the illegal numbers game paid better than the lottery. It paid
off 600 dollars on a 1 in a 1000 bet. Lotto and other legal methods
usually pay 500 on a bet like that.
>
>Lotteries are rightly described as a tax on stupidity. A way to buy $5
>bills for $10 each.
Absolutely. I should be happy that so many people are voluntariy
giving their money to the government, but it annoys me so much that
I'm not.
--
Posters should say what U,S. state if any they live in. Why
do so many keep their state as secret as their own name?
IANAL. That is, I am not a lawyer.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
>> any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
>> section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
>> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
> Did you look at section 18.2-327?
> http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-327
I did.
§ 18.2-327. Winning by fraud; penalty.
If any person while gambling cheats or by fraudulent means wins or
acquires for himself or another money or any other valuable thing,
he shall be fined not less than five nor more than ten times the
value of such winnings. This penalty shall be in addition to any
other penalty imposed under this article.
That begs the question of whether attempting to determine whether a
ticket is a winner before buying it is cheating or fraud. If it is,
the law should say so explicitly.
Also, see
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-334.3
§ 18.2-334.3. Exemptions to article; state lottery.
Nothing in this article shall apply to any lottery conducted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to Chapter 40 of Title 58.1.
"This article" in both laws refers to the same thing. So §18.2-327
doesn't apply to the state lottery.
Caesar Romano
tickets:
>Lotteries are rightly described as a tax on stupidity. A way to buy $5
>bills for $10 each.
Indeed, and that is what is nice about them. Better a tax on the
stupid than a tax on the hard-working.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
MJacobsLaw
news:i05276$kp8$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> § 18.2-327. Winning by fraud; penalty.
>
> If any person while gambling cheats or by fraudulent means wins or
> acquires for himself or another money or any other valuable thing,
> he shall be fined not less than five nor more than ten times the
> value of such winnings. This penalty shall be in addition to any
> other penalty imposed under this article.
>
> That begs the question of whether attempting to determine whether a
> ticket is a winner before buying it is cheating or fraud. If it is,
> the law should say so explicitly.
IMO you're asking too much of the law. As another poster noted recently,
the law cannot possibly keep up with every conceivable method of cheating,
or prohibit each physical method explicitly.
Cheating, at a game of chance, means _any_ dishonest method of obtaining and
using advance knowledge of what some element of the game is going to be,
and/or of affecting the intended purely random outcome of the game, so that
one's betting on the odds of that outcome is not merely an educated guess,
but is closer to a sure thing. Marking a deck, or pulling an ace out of
one's sleeve and adding it to one's own poker hand is cheating because it
adds a 100% known card to the random mix you obtained purely by chance from
the dealer. Weighting a pair of dice, or rounding off one corner more than
others, to make them land more frequently on one side (say, snakeeyes) is
cheating (which is one reason why casino dice are generally made of
completely cubical, see-through material. Rigging the roulette wheel to
have a secret dealer-operated brake that affects the odds the ball will land
in a certain slot, is cheating. As someone mentioned, magnetizing the
ping-pong balls in the lotto tumbler so that the ones you want are more
likely to come out, is also cheating.
Why is looking at the lotto ticket before you buy it, cheating? Because if
you already know what the winning combo is - which one _does_ know, if it is
a scratch-off ticket and one looks below the scratch-off material before
buying - then NOBODY WOULD BUY the ones that are NOT winners, and the person
who has (unfair and unequal) opportunity to view the ones that ARE winners
(say, the clerk behind the counter, who scans all the tickets in his spare
time) is gaining a dishonest, unfair advantage over his fellow
ticket-buyers. Do _all_ lotto-ticket buyers have that opportunity? No.
Would an honest clerk allow a random potential ticket-buyer ALSO to scan all
the tickets that seller is offering for sale, before the buyer selected a
ticket to buy (or, before he declined to buy any, since he knew there were
no winners in the bunch)? No, he would not. Thus, sneaking a peek is
cheating, just the same as it is when you sneak a peek at your fellow
players' card hands, or their Scrabble racks, or their Stratego positions,
or the Clue solution cards to learn that Colonel Mustard killed the victim
in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe, or whatever.
There is no need whatsoever for the law to be mores specific than to say
that "cheating is illegal." It leaves it up to the jury to decide what
"cheating" is.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private
communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Timothy
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in messagenews:hvmkhr$nc3$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > It would seem obvious that this would be illegal. But I can't find
> > any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
> > section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
> >http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
>
> Did you look at section 18.2-327?http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-327
>
The laws and the regulations in Virginia apparently attack the problem
directly: they ban cheating on the lottery simply (and rather
tautologically) by banning cheating. Rather than trying to ban
specific techniques, the lottery's rules generally forbid anything
which would allow you to determine the value of a scratch ticket
before you actually scratch it. The state absolutely does have the
right to address this problem this way (i.e., by banning a particular
result no matter how it was arrived at.)
Gordon Burditt
>> > any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
>> > section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
>> >http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
>>
>> Did you look at section
>18.2-327?http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-327
>>
>
>The laws and the regulations in Virginia apparently attack the problem
>directly: they ban cheating on the lottery simply (and rather
>tautologically) by banning cheating. Rather than trying to ban
>specific techniques, the lottery's rules generally forbid anything
>which would allow you to determine the value of a scratch ticket
>before you actually scratch it. The state absolutely does have the
>right to address this problem this way (i.e., by banning a particular
>result no matter how it was arrived at.)
Would that cover this situation?
A man comes into a gas station where they sell lottery tickets,
asks for 10 *winners* in the XXXXX lottery game, and lays down a
$20 bill on the counter. (Tickets are $2 each and are not subject
to sales tax). The store clerk takes the $20 and hands him 10
tickets. (Up to this point, I've seen this happen a few times,
with different amounts of lottery tickets and different games. Yes,
the customer specifically asked for *winners*). He then sues the
gas station because they did not provide what he was asking for,
*winners*. He only got 2 out of 10 tickets that won something, and
those only minor prizes.
(This particular gas station is in Texas, but I imagine the same
thing happens all over the country in states where they have a
lottery.)
Cy Pres
> I looked at this statute. My first impression is that it may not
> apply to scratch-off ticket purchases because I'm not convinced that
> is "gambling". Anyone got any authority on that issue?
Gambling is defined as placing a bet on anything with an uncertain outcome
at least partly based on chance. Why would a lottery not qualify? If you
look at most anti-gambling statutes, they specifically except a lottery if
there is a state lottery. Why would they bother doing that unless a
lottery were gambling?
Additionally, in most gambling-related statutes I've seen in states with a
lottery, the section authorizing the lottery is in the same law.
The primary attribute of gambling is chance.
Note, however, somewhat weakening my argument in the first paragraph, some
anti-gambling statutes also specifically exempt some activities which are
generally not considered gambling, such as stock or securities trading.
> If I look at the scratch-off ticket (pre-scratch and pre-purchase)
> through my magic wango-bango crystal for a sign of good fortune, or
> hold it up to my turbaned head for a psychic reading (ala Carson's
> Karnak), is that cheating?
I would imagine only if doing so actually increased your odds of winning,
and thereby cheated other players of their fair expected value. (I.e.
their chances of winning multiplied by the amount to be won).
Cy Pres
> A man comes into a gas station where they sell lottery tickets,
> asks for 10 *winners* in the XXXXX lottery game, and lays down a
> $20 bill on the counter. (Tickets are $2 each and are not subject
> to sales tax). The store clerk takes the $20 and hands him 10
> tickets. (Up to this point, I've seen this happen a few times,
> with different amounts of lottery tickets and different games. Yes,
> the customer specifically asked for *winners*). He then sues the
> gas station because they did not provide what he was asking for,
> *winners*. He only got 2 out of 10 tickets that won something, and
> those only minor prizes.
I can't imagine anyone winning on a frivolous case like this. The
reasonable interpretation of the request is that it is humorous in
intent, like asking a blackjack dealer to deal you a blackjack.
Additionally, you would be asking the clerk to commit a crime or at
least breach their contract with the state lottery. Therefore, even if
there was a contract created, it would not be enforceable as being
against public policy.
I think anyone bringing such a lawsuit would be likely to face
sanctions for frivolous litigation.
mm
Burditt) wrote:
>
>>The laws and the regulations in Virginia apparently attack the problem
>>directly: they ban cheating on the lottery simply (and rather
>>tautologically) by banning cheating....
>Would that cover this situation?
>
>A man comes into a gas station where they sell lottery tickets,
>asks for 10 *winners* .... He then sues the
>gas station because they did not provide what he was asking for,
>*winners*. He only got 2 out of 10 tickets that won something,
Many tickets pay off a little bit. It's part of the hook to keep
customers coming back. One of the things that makes the whole thing
despicable. It's like the 3-card Monte player on the sidewalk who
lets the mark win a couple times, until he ups the bet. Or the shell
game where the same technique is used.
>and those only minor prizes.
So what. Did the guy say, Give me big winners, grand prize winners?
Next time he'll ask for what he really wants, but it's too late now.
For that matter, did he say, "Give me 10 winners."? Oh, yeah, he did.
So if he was smart enough to ask for 10 winners and not just winners,
he should have been smart enough to say "10 winners that pay over
nnnnn dollars each".
You mean, get the plaintiff to drop his lawsuit by pointing out to him
that he will face a charge of cheating, for asking for winners and
then being complicit with the gas station guy who cheats when he picks
out the winners? If the plaintiff is well-informed, I don't think
this will work because I think and he should know that you cant'
convict the gas station guy, since he seems not to have cheated, and
thus the buyer of the tickts can't be complicit with him.
But if the plaintiff were well-informed, he woudn't be suing the
station anyhow. Saying "Give me winners" doesn't make a contract
where the station has to give him winners. Besides the fact that such
a contract would be illegal because it requires cheating, "Give me
winners" I'm sure is the equivalent of puffing by a used car dealer.
Evryone wants winners and some people say give me winners but everyone
but this guy knows the vendor can't tell which are winners and if he
could tell and was willing to do it, he woudln't work with a stranger.
He'd find a friend to sell the winners to for a pre-decided cut. The
words only mean give me tickets. Just like "Deal me some aces", which
people also say, means Deal me some cards. Not being a lawyer, I
don't have a cite for any of this. :) but I'm sure this won't work or
we'd have heard about it a lot.
People are expected to have a mimimum degree of sense in most of the
law** and that means they should know they can't get winners just by
asking for them.
**Maybe his attorney could argue he was mentally incompetent and
unable to make a contract, but even if that worked, the remedy would
be to undo the contract and refund his 20 dollars. How much did your
plaintiff want to get? What 10 winners would have paid, I'll bet.
mm
<miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>If I look at the scratch-off ticket (pre-scratch and pre-purchase)
>through my magic wango-bango crystal for a sign of good fortune, or
>hold it up to my turbaned head for a psychic reading (ala Carson's
>Karnak), is that cheating?
If it works, absolutely. I"m putting you on the Lotto Watch List.
Actually there are three Lotto Watch Lists. I only have the authority
to put you on Level 3. If you attempt to buy a ticket, they will sell
you the ticket, but your identity will be checked within the next year
and you will be notified that you shoudln't have bought it. If you buy
another one while on Level 3, you will be moved to Level 2, amd you
will be notified within 6 months that you shouldn't have bought it and
you wiill be sent a form to sign and return where you promise not to
buy any more.
If you buy one while on Level 2, you will be moved to Level 1, deemed
a Lotto Terrorist and no further letters will be sent, due to the
rules against associating with terrorists.
Robert Bonomi
A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If I look at the scratch-off ticket (pre-scratch and pre-purchase)
>through my magic wango-bango crystal for a sign of good fortune, or
>hold it up to my turbaned head for a psychic reading (ala Carson's
>Karnak), is that cheating?
The proverbial "it depends" applies. <grin>
If the technique -- whatever it is -- works *reliably*, then it _is_ giving
you an "unfair advantage" over the idiots who are just 'playing the odds' (as
bad as _they_ are), and _as_such_ is deemed to be 'cheating'.
Robert Bonomi
I'll point out that the man did 'get what he _asked_for_', even if it
was not what he 'meant'. Two of the tickets won something, that means
that each of those tickets -was- a 'winner', at least in minor degree.
AND, since he had _two_ of them, the use of the plural form *is* accurate.
<*snicker*>
OK, that silliness aside, the request for '10 winning tickets' is impossible
for the vender to fulfill, _legally_. If the vendor _has_ a way of determining
"winners" from non-winners, *using* it is illegal, and the man who 'ordered'
the winning tickets has solicited the performance of a criminal act. If such
a methodology _doesn't_ exist, then it is impossible for this vendor OR ANY
OTHER VENDOR to perform as requested.
Yeah, the purchaser can sue -- the line about "anybody can sue anybody, for
_anything_" applies -- but the courts will not 'compel performance' on an
impossibility, nor award damages for failure to "do the impossible".
Barry Gold
[concerning VA law and using a fancy medical scanner to find winning
"scratcher" tickets]
>> The laws and the regulations in Virginia apparently attack the problem
>> directly: they ban cheating on the lottery simply (and rather
>> tautologically) by banning cheating. Rather than trying to ban
>> specific techniques, the lottery's rules generally forbid anything
>> which would allow you to determine the value of a scratch ticket
>> before you actually scratch it.
A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This brings my mind back to the recent thread involving attempted
>cheating on a school exam by prayer (or a similar request for divine
>assistance).
>
>If I look at the scratch-off ticket (pre-scratch and pre-purchase)
>through my magic wango-bango crystal for a sign of good fortune, or
>hold it up to my turbaned head for a psychic reading (ala Carson's
>Karnak), is that cheating?
No, and for the same reason as praying isn't cheating. Because those
things don't work -- and cannot work -- in this universe. "Mistake of
fact" isn't a defense when the action you took _could_ have resulted
in the commission of a crime, but for some fact about the _state_ of
things that you were unaware of (unloaded gun, the "person" you are
attacking already died, etc.).
But "Mistake of fact" _will_ be a defense if the method you use
_could not_ work in this universe. You cannot be convicted of
Attempted Murder for trying to kill somebody with Voodoo, because
Voodoo simply doesn't work.
Of course, there is _one_ difference between the prayer case and this
one. As Jacobs correctly pointed out, the State cannot even _consider_
the possibility that prayer might work -- it's a religious issue and
the 1st Amendment simply says, "You can't go there." Period.
OTOH, trying to use psychic abilities or a magic wango-bango crystal
_could_ be simply pseudo-science (rather than a religious belief). In
that case, the state _can_ introduce evidence as to whether there is a
_possibility_ that your psychic powers might work, or your wango-
bango crystal might somehow let you "tune in" and find out whether the
ticket is a winner.
If psychic powers work for even _one_ person in the world, and you try
to use your own (nonexistent) psychic powers, that _is_ a mistake of
fact and could be (attepted) cheating. But absent proof that they
work, there isn't sufficient possibility of success to constitute an
"attempt".
That is, of course, *if* they can find enough evidence to convince a
judge that there is _probable cause_ to believe that "psychic powers"
or a "magic wango-bango wand" will work -- somewhere, somehow, for
somebody. And then convince a jury of the same thing beyond a
reasonable doubt.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster for:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society: http://www.lasfsinc.org
My blog: http://goldslaw.livejournal.com/
Seth
Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <f6OdnelIP-Cbh7PR...@posted.internetamerica>,
>Gordon Burditt <gor...@hammy.burditt.org> wrote:
>>A man comes into a gas station where they sell lottery tickets,
>>asks for 10 *winners* in the XXXXX lottery game, and lays down a
>>$20 bill on the counter. (Tickets are $2 each and are not subject
>>to sales tax).
>I'll point out that the man did 'get what he _asked_for_', even if it
>was not what he 'meant'. Two of the tickets won something, that means
>that each of those� tickets -was- a 'winner', at least in minor degree.
>AND, since he had _two_ of them, the use of the plural form *is* accurate.
No, he asked for 10 winners, and received 2 winners. If he asked for
10 hotdogs, and received 2 hotdogs + 8 empty buns, I think you'd agree
that he didn't get what he ordered.
>OK, that silliness aside, the request for '10 winning tickets' is impossible
>for the vender to fulfill, _legally_.
No, it isn't. Here's the deal: you pay me $500, and I'll give you 10
tickets; you scratch them and see how many are winners. I'll keep
providing you tickets until you have 10 winners. Depending on the
frequency of winners, I might make or lose money on that deal, but it
ought to be legal.
> If the vendor _has_ a way of determining
>"winners" from non-winners, *using* it is illegal,
Scratching the tickets is how one normally determines winners; is that
illegal for the vendor to do? Suppose a quadriplegic wants to buy
some lottery tickets and asks the vendor to scratch them because the
buyer is unable to.
>Yeah, the purchaser can sue -- the line about "anybody can sue anybody, for
> _anything_" applies -- but the courts will not 'compel performance' on an
>impossibility, nor award damages for failure to "do the impossible".
It's not impossible, it just has an expected cost (assuming the
original scenario is typical) of $100 rather than $10 (which is why I
offered it for $500).
Seth
Daniel R.Reitman
>If it works, absolutely. I"m putting you on the Lotto Watch List.
>. . . .
On behalf of Bi-Metallic Inv. Co., what is the procedure for appealing
placement on the list?
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Seth
To combine threads, what if someone prays for the answer? Is the
state allowed to assert that prayer works? (If someone doesn't say
what he's doing but it can be demonstrated that he has a reliable
method, he's cheating; but if he claims his method is prayer, does the
state now have to prove what his method actually is?)
Seth
Mike
> On Jun 30, 11:54 am, Timothy<Timothy.Horri...@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> any law against it here in Virginia. I think it would be in either
>>>> section 18 or section 58. The complete code of Virginia is online at
>>>> http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
>>
>>> Did you look at section 18.2-327?http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-327
>
> apply to scratch-off ticket purchases because I'm not convinced that
> is "gambling". Anyone got any authority on that issue?
From a quick search, I found: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/g002.htm
"GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT
any common gaming or gambling establishment operated for the purpose of
gaming or gambling, including accepting, recording, or registering bets,
or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
game of chance, for money or other thing of value. 18 USC"
Yes, I know the citation is truncated. That's how the site had it and
I'm being too lazy to search more. Also I realize this is a federal cite
and the law in question was state but VA doesn't seem to define "gamble"
or "gambling" in the statutes. So at least one source does seem to say
that a lottery is a form of gambling.
Mike
> I'll point out that the man did 'get what he _asked_for_', even if it
> was not what he 'meant'. Two of the tickets won something, that means
> that each of those� tickets -was- a 'winner', at least in minor degree.
> AND, since he had _two_ of them, the use of the plural form *is* accurate.
> <*snicker*>
Actually, no, he would NOT have gotten what he asked for. He didn't say
"give me 2 winners" and the clerk just handed him an extra 8 tickets
just for the hell of it. He asked for "10 winners" or else the clerk
would not have known how many tickets he wanted at all (to use yer
"logic", the clerk would have handed him 2 winning tickets and $16
change back if ALL he said was "give me winners" without specifying the
number. Or he could say "I asked for 'winners' and did not express any
intention to pay for non-winning tickets of any number.")
Robert Bonomi
Daniel R.Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:27:39 -0400, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>If it works, absolutely. I"m putting you on the Lotto Watch List.
>
>>. . . .
>
>On behalf of Bi-Metallic Inv. Co., what is the procedure for appealing
>placement on the list?
Trade your watch in for a sundial. You're now on the no-wath list
Robert Bonomi
>In article <WOudnXQFlddJoq_R...@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
>Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>In article <4a7305d7-84ce-4b5a...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>If I look at the scratch-off ticket (pre-scratch and pre-purchase)
>>>through my magic wango-bango crystal for a sign of good fortune, or
>>>hold it up to my turbaned head for a psychic reading (ala Carson's
>>>Karnak), is that cheating?
>>
>>The proverbial "it depends" applies. <grin>
>>
>>If the technique -- whatever it is -- works *reliably*, then it _is_ giving
>>you an "unfair advantage" over the idiots who are just 'playing the odds' (as
>>bad as _they_ are), and _as_such_ is deemed to be 'cheating'.
>
>To combine threads, what if someone prays for the answer? Is the
>state allowed to assert that prayer works?
The state is barred from that _particular_ assertation. that does
not preclude the assertation that "his technique, regardless of whatever
he chooses to call it, and regardless of whether it _is_ what he claims
it is, appears to work."
Needless to say, the fact that defendant _claims_ his technique/methodology
is 'prayer' does not mean that it *is*, in fact, prayer.
> (If someone doesn't say
>what he's doing but it can be demonstrated that he has a reliable
>method, he's cheating; but if he claims his method is prayer, does the
>state now have to prove what his method actually is?)
*What* the methodology is _does_not_matter_. No particular methodology
is either proscribed or permitted.
All the State has to show is that "his technique, _whatever_he_chooses_to_
_call_it_, is effective".
Robert Bonomi
>In article <DrWdnSRs_uJE36_R...@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
>Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>In article <f6OdnelIP-Cbh7PR...@posted.internetamerica>,
>>Gordon Burditt <gor...@hammy.burditt.org> wrote:
>
>
>>OK, that silliness aside, the request for '10 winning tickets' is impossible
>>for the vender to fulfill, _legally_.
>
>No, it isn't. Here's the deal: you pay me $500, and I'll give you 10
>tickets; you scratch them and see how many are winners. I'll keep
>providing you tickets until you have 10 winners. Depending on the
>frequency of winners, I might make or lose money on that deal, but it
>ought to be legal.
what you think 'ought to be', *ISNT*. for several reasons.
first, that 'transaction' involves illegal gambling on *your* part.
Second, postulatiing you are an 'authorized' lottery ticket seller, you
are acting as 'agent' (with -very- limited authority) for the government
(this is *not* a 'retail/resale' situation -- where you have the right/
ability to "set your own prices". You have to sell _at_ the price, and
in the manner specified by the 'seller' (the lottery).
>> If the vendor _has_ a way of determining
>>"winners" from non-winners, *using* it is illegal,
>
>Scratching the tickets is how one normally determines winners; is that
>illegal for the vendor to do? Suppose a quadriplegic wants to buy
>some lottery tickets and asks the vendor to scratch them because the
>buyer is unable to.
Strawman. and *irrelevant* to the situation under discussion -- which
was a determination _before_ the sale. Per the context of the remarks,
although not explicitly re-stated.
>>Yeah, the purchaser can sue -- the line about "anybody can sue anybody, for
>> _anything_" applies -- but the courts will not 'compel performance' on an
>>impossibility, nor award damages for failure to "do the impossible".
>
>It's not impossible, it just has an expected cost (assuming the
>original scenario is typical) of $100 rather than $10 (which is why I
>offered it for $500).
As noted previously, your proposed technique involves an illegality.
AS SUCH it _is_ a "legal" impossibility, and a court will not order on
that basis.
Barry Gold
>A man comes into a gas station where they sell lottery tickets,
>asks for 10 *winners* in the XXXXX lottery game, and lays down a
>$20 bill on the counter. (Tickets are $2 each and are not subject
>to sales tax). The store clerk takes the $20 and hands him 10
>tickets. (Up to this point, I've seen this happen a few times,
>with different amounts of lottery tickets and different games. Yes,
>the customer specifically asked for *winners*). He then sues the
>gas station because they did not provide what he was asking for,
>*winners*. He only got 2 out of 10 tickets that won something, and
>those only minor prizes.
Okay, let's subject this to legal analysis (which is what would happen
if the buyer _did_ sue over this.)
First of all, I think this is a matter of contract law. The buyer
asks for "10 winners", pays $20, and receives 10 tickets. That's a
"meeting of minds" with "consideration" (the $20 and the tickets) and
hence a contract.
There are several ways of interpreting the contract. Remember that
the essence of a contract is a "meeting of minds". That is, both
parties mean the same thing, however they arrive at that meaning.
Whether the contract is written down, verbal ("I'll do X if you do Y")
or implicit (you bring a bunch of stuff to the checkstand and pay for
them), the important thing is the meaning.
So, one way of interpreting this is that "10 winners" is just a
colloquial form of "10 tickets", with an implied _hope_ that some or
all of them will win money for the buyer.
Using that interpretation, the buyer received exactly what he asked
for, the contract is complete, and the buyer has no valid complaint.
Judgment for the defendant. If filed in regular court, there might
even be Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff for filing a frivolous
lawsuit. (But I would expect this to happen in Small Claims court,
where AFAIK Rule 11 doesn't apply.)
Now, you _could_ argue that the buyer meant exactly what he said: that
he wants 10 tickets and each one has a non-zero payoff. This is a
legal impossibility. There is no legitimate way for the seller to
know which tickets are "winners" and which are not. So this is a
contract to perform an illegal act: to determine which tickets are
"winners" without scratching them off.
The general rule is that a contract for an illegal act is void.
Further, the courts will not help the parties in any way -- if one
party has done his part (paid for the tickets) and the other party has
not, the court will not award damages nor require a refund or anything
else. Wherever things stand is where the courts will leave it. At
least in US law.
Seth
>Now, you _could_ argue that the buyer meant exactly what he said: that
>he wants 10 tickets and each one has a non-zero payoff. This is a
>legal impossibility.
Why?
> There is no legitimate way for the seller to
>know which tickets are "winners" and which are not.
That's easily determined by scratching them.
> So this is a contract to perform an illegal act: to determine which
>tickets are "winners" without scratching them off.
No, that's only one way of fulfilling it. There are others.
(Let's assume that around 10% of the tickets are winners.) I'll sell
you 10 winners for $500. There are two ways I can fulfill that
contract: (1) I give you 10 tickets, you scratch them, I replace the
losers with new tickets until you have 10 winners. That might be
illegal, as form of gambling (the gamble is over the number of tickets
you get). So I'd use method (2): I give you 200 tickets. The
probability of not getting 10 winners (the expected number is 20) is
low enough (less than 0.001%) that I'm willing to risk it. I don't
see how that could be illegal.
>The general rule is that a contract for an illegal act is void.
But there is no illegal act involved in my second method (and possibly
not in my first).
Seth
Mike
> The request for "winners" would not be reasonable taken as a serious
> offer, but as a joke. The law doesn't enforce joke offers.
I agree that it wouldn't be enforceable. I was simply disagreeing with
Robert on "did the customer get what he asked for?" and I say he didn't.
Saying he didn't get what he asked for doesn't mean he can sue and
prevail in order to FORCE getting what he asked for (any more than
people in hell can sue to get the ice water they asked for :) )
I could walk into a brothel (assuming a state other than Nevada) and ask
for a specific sex act and I pay and then I may or may not get that
specific sex act. But if I don't get it (or if I get baking soda instead
of coke or oregano instead of pot in a drug deal) I didn't get what I
asked for and my request was definitely NOT a joke but yet I still can't
sue for specific performance.
Robert Bonomi
Mike <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>On 7/9/2010 10:50 AM, A Michigan Attorney wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 12:50 pm, Mike<prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/5/2010 4:38 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll point out that the man did 'get what he _asked_for_', even if it
>>>> was not what he 'meant'. Two of the tickets won something, that means
>>>> that each of those tickets -was- a 'winner', at least in minor degree.
>>>> AND, since he had _two_ of them, the use of the plural form *is* accurate.
>>>> <*snicker*>
>>>
>>> Actually, no, he would NOT have gotten what he asked for. He didn't say
>>> "give me 2 winners" and the clerk just handed him an extra 8 tickets
>>> just for the hell of it. He asked for "10 winners" or else the clerk
>>> would not have known how many tickets he wanted at all (to use yer
>>> "logic", the clerk would have handed him 2 winning tickets and $16
>>> change back if ALL he said was "give me winners" without specifying the
>>> number. Or he could say "I asked for 'winners' and did not express any
>>> intention to pay for non-winning tickets of any number.")
>>
>> There's nothing enforceable against the retailer in this scenario.
>> The request for "winners" would not be reasonable taken as a serious
>> offer, but as a joke. The law doesn't enforce joke offers.
>
>I agree that it wouldn't be enforceable. I was simply disagreeing with
>Robert on "did the customer get what he asked for?" and I say he didn't.
He asked for "10 winning tickets".
He got one winner, _and_ he got another winner.
"There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who understand binary nubers,
and those who do not."
*GRIN*
Mike
But then if he PAID for 1010 tickets, he was overcharged, since he
indicated he only wanted 10 (Yes, some of us do understand binary :) )
mm
>
>> If the vendor _has_ a way of determining
>>"winners" from non-winners, *using* it is illegal,
>
>Scratching the tickets is how one normally determines winners; is that
>illegal for the vendor to do? Suppose a quadriplegic wants to buy
>some lottery tickets and asks the vendor to scratch them because the
>buyer is unable to.
He can get someone else to do it. I have a hunch it's illegal for the
authorized lottery agent or his employees to do it. It would lead to
problems. It woudl sort of be like an election judge helping someone
to vote. Why shouldn't she, except it can leasd to problems and it's
illegal.