A. Summary:
On May 5, 2006, Troy Blackford gambled at PRAIRIE MEADOWS RACETRACK AND CASINO and won $9,376. After knowing that Blackford had been banned from entering its premises, Prairie Meadows refused to pay him.
In 2000, Blackford wrote a letter to Meadows request to lift the ban. By the time Blackford won, Meadows was unable to find the letter but discovered it at a later date. Despite Blackford claims that Prairie Meadows had sent him a letter saying that the ban was lifted, Prairie Meadows refused to have done it. Finally, Blackford winnings were confiscated, and he had to pay fine for the trespassing.
Blackford sued Prairie Meadows and requires Prairie Meadows to recover the damages.
B. Court opinion:
The trial court concluded that
…show more content…
C. Student opinion:
The issue in this case is whether Prairie Meadows has a right under the Iowa Code to withhold gambling winnings from involuntary trespassers.
In my opinion, the court decision is precisely, and Prairie Meadows has the authority to confiscate winnings from Blackford. I come to that conclusion by analyze these following judgments:
Firstly, there is a contract here between Prairie Meadows and their patrons. According to Iowa Code: “Gambling interactions follow traditional contract theory with the requirements offer, acceptance, and consideration”. Because it is a contract so there are always offeror and offeree.
In this case, clearly, Prairie Meadows is the offeror. It makes an offer to its patrons that, it accepted by wagering an amount and patron wins, it will pay off the wager. In making an offer, Iowa Code mentions that: “The offeror is the master of his offer”, and as master, the offeror may decide to whom to propose the