May. 8th, 2006
I'm not a lawyer, but...
May. 8th, 2006 04:51 pm... something about one of the current Archers storyline is puzzling me (and it's not the question of why Ruth-the-Geordie-farmer's-wife wants to keep a picture of Usha-the-solicitor snogging Alan-the-vicar; I don't want to go there).
Rather, it's this: I had always understood that gambling debts were unenforceable. Fair enough, a gentleman pays his debts, but as far as I'm concerned Matt Crawford (who is by no means a gentleman, though I am rather disappointed by his descent into stage villany) forfeited his right to the money when he started using it to try to blackmail his debtor, Alistair the Wet Vet, into destroying an perfectly good racehorse, and aiding and abetting an insurance fraud into the bargain. It didn't seem to occur to that idiot Alistair that had he given in, far from it wiping the slate clean, it would have given Matt an even bigger hold over him; however, his conscience prevented him from doing so and he is now desperately trying to find the money.
So is the unenforcability of gambling debts a myth? Has the law changed? Can one really sue over I.O.U.s given as payment for gambling debts?
(Of course, this probably makes very little sense to most of those of you reading this, unless you are a regular Radio 4 listener and given to considering radio's longest running soap - although I think, according to
weymss, it's on the Wizarding Wireless Network too, now...)
Rather, it's this: I had always understood that gambling debts were unenforceable. Fair enough, a gentleman pays his debts, but as far as I'm concerned Matt Crawford (who is by no means a gentleman, though I am rather disappointed by his descent into stage villany) forfeited his right to the money when he started using it to try to blackmail his debtor, Alistair the Wet Vet, into destroying an perfectly good racehorse, and aiding and abetting an insurance fraud into the bargain. It didn't seem to occur to that idiot Alistair that had he given in, far from it wiping the slate clean, it would have given Matt an even bigger hold over him; however, his conscience prevented him from doing so and he is now desperately trying to find the money.
So is the unenforcability of gambling debts a myth? Has the law changed? Can one really sue over I.O.U.s given as payment for gambling debts?
(Of course, this probably makes very little sense to most of those of you reading this, unless you are a regular Radio 4 listener and given to considering radio's longest running soap - although I think, according to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
(no subject)
May. 8th, 2006 11:02 pmMy flatmates, when they're not stripping down bicyles on the kitchen floor, have been arguing incessantly about transubstantiation. For days.
If this goes on much longer, I will have to start throwing things at them. Possibly the Summa. Both heavy and appropriate.
Or reciting the Proof that God is not made of soap
If this goes on much longer, I will have to start throwing things at them. Possibly the Summa. Both heavy and appropriate.
Or reciting the Proof that God is not made of soap