wtf...is this legal?

[phish]

I think it's a bad idea for any site to help facilitate deals, but if they're going to do it, they need to take responsibility.
Hence, in the case that Mr Jones mentions where one guy gets more than first place money, they SHOULD point out to the other players that it is not an equitable deal and ask them to confirm that they still want to go thru with it.

And they should have tighter rules that states that any deal to be made must have a support person there at the time to ensure that everyone agrees to it. Now this would not be efficient for a $100 HU tourney. So maybe they ought to say we don't deal with deals involving prize pools less than $10000 or so.

But given the special circumstances of this case and the way Stars does things now, I'd say they did the only thing they could really do, even tho I don't believe a deal was made, since there was no consideration.
And they can't refund the guy's money either because that would open them up for all kinds of scams where guys pretend to have a dispute and expect Stars to refund their money.

[sinfulslick18]

sounds pretty illegal.. get that 10.50 back

[langley11]

man, thats just crazy. Crazy!

[IgorSmiles]

Seems to me if one person offers a deal and the other says "yes" that is a deal. It's pretty hard to interpret sarcasm from a chat box.

[scott8]

My two cents is that I take PS down a notch.

[FredBoots]

A lot has been posted on this subject, but I thought I'd add:

1. PokerStars has changed their tournament rules adding a couple of things (see below):
(http://www.pokerstars.com/tournamentsrules.html)

"However, PokerStars may enforce the deal if it was clearly agreed to by all parties."

"PokerStars will not participate in the deal making process, but will ensure that everyone is in complete agreement before executing the transfers per the above conditions."

2. PokerStars is bound by the laws of Costa Rica.

3. In this case there was no "deal", by any definition, legal or otherwise ("deal - an arrangement for mutual advantage"). The law is this way for your protection! If your neighbor asks you to look after his dog, you say yes but later have to say no, DO YOU WANT HIM TAKING YOU TO COURT?!? If there is no consideration (i.e., payment or promise of payment), there is no legally binding contract. I'm a professional engineer and believe me, you don't want the law to work differently.

[Glassworks]

[ QUOTE ]
3. In this case there was no "deal", by any definition, legal or otherwise ("deal - an arrangement for mutual advantage"). The law is this way for your protection! If your neighbor asks you to look after his dog, you say yes but later have to say no, DO YOU WANT HIM TAKING YOU TO COURT?!? If there is no consideration (i.e., payment or promise of payment), there is no legally binding contract. I'm a professional engineer and believe me, you don't want the law to work differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron engineer. I hope you don't build the bridges I drive my car on.

He never said no, he only said yes. That's a deal.

Thanks Lee for seeing this the right way.

[ImNew]

Oh my God so many replies!

Im new so I don't know, what did support say?

[speirs]

Somebody owes me $10.50 for waisting my time with this thread and I heared you could spare it.

[kyro]

And with that $10.50 you could probably buy some flashcards and learn how to spell.