On Mar 12, 10:20=A0pm, Richard Miller
wrote:
> In message <63qqsoF28cpd...@mid.individual.net>, "tim (not at home)"
> writes
>
>
>
> >"Svenne" wrote in message
> >news:rt9gt3t04bs405bob7p7i2fvqrj0fkb0mn@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:43:18 +0000, Richard Miller
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>I think Mr Hood needs to get a lawyer to explain the ruling to him. The=
> >>>judge's comment above *is* a finding that they had a duty of care to hi=
m
> >>>and that they breached it. William Hill escaped because the judge
> >>>concluded, incontrovertibly in my view, that Mr Calvert would have lost=
> >>>the money one way or another regardless of any steps William Hill took.=
>
> >> That is an unreasonable assumption.
>
> What is unreasonable about inferring that someone with a serious
> gambling problem will lose money gambling even if some agencies decline
> to take his bets?
>
>
>
> >> The judge cannot assume he would have lost the money anyway.
>
> >But he did.
>
> And I see no good reason for him not to have done so.
> --
> Richard Miller
In fact there is very good grounds for inferring that he would -
namely that when the opportunity presented itself to Mr Calvert (via
Will Hills) he did continue to gamble.On that basis, one could say
that the claim is inherently self defeating. |