One thing that jumped out at me was that Nevada, like most places, still does not enforce gambling debts. There is a law requiring the payment of a winning bet, but the common-law doctrine that gambling debts are unenforceable is still in force in Nevada.
I suspect this means that, regardless of the merits of his claim, Crispin Leyser is out of luck trying to collect half of Jamie Gold’s $12 million first prize in the 2006 World Series of Poker.
By the way, what ever happened with that investigation Harrah's was doing into the extra chips I discovered added to the main event?
Is Leyser claim a gambling debt or is it a contract? Based on his claim, he said Gold promised him in advance to give half for helping him find celebrities to wear Bodog, since Bodog would only pay for one entry.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to pretend I know what was said between Gold and Leyser. To me it sounded like Gold promised Leyser something he could not provide, a seat at the WSOP. When he found out he couldn't get the seat, he promised money for a job Leyser did.
To me this is a contract and not a debt. A debt to me would be, Gold wants to bet $10 on the Bears to be the Rams Monday night. The Bears lose, Gold does not pay, Leyser goes to court. The court would not make Gold pay.