% trade deal reneged

[The Bloke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suppose you didn't cash and he didn't play. then would he have to give you back your $0 that you won? that would obviously be wrong, just like it's wrong for him to give back 892 now.

what he should do is to give you back your expected win from the 1% stake. if he were break-even, it would be $11. he should give himself the benefit of the doubt, call himself great, and give you $30.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this is what I'm saying. I think it's the most logical way to look at it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are two different ways to look at this arrangement:

1. That this was two separate backing deals. OP bought into WSOPguy for $11, and WSOPguy bought into OP for $11. These deals were arranged at the same time, but are otherwise independent. Therefore it is possible and not unreasonable for only one half of the staking to actually occur, because that does not affect the other.

I think this is the view you two are taking.

2. This was a deal/contract based on two events taking place - OP playing in Stars, and WSOPguy playing in WSOP. The two events are thus linked, and if both do not occur, the deal does not stand. Therefore WSOPguy should pay back OP the $892, and they will be even.


To be honest, I can now see your point of view, and I do see that 1. is a reasonable approach. Particularly as the reason for the WSOP part of the deal was only because WSOPguy did not have $11 on stars to give to OP. We would therefore assume that if WSOPguy DID have $11 on stars, he would have staked OP without any mention of WSOP participation, and there would be no argument - the $892 would belong to WSOPguy.

I guess the lesson here is that the terms need to be very clearly stated at the outset - including every eventuality. This may seem awkward if the deal is between friends - but as this shows, they may not remain friends for long if something like this does occur.

As to which path should be taken now - I suppose that really depends on whether OP and WSOPguy can come to an agreement on the terms of their original deal; if OP feels that the deal was definitely conditional on both events taking place (perhaps this was even mentioned), he has a case.