tree_and_leaf (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
tree_and_leaf) wrote2006-05-08 04:51 pm
tree_and_leaf) wrote2006-05-08 04:51 pm
I'm not a lawyer, but...
... 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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
weymss, it's on the Wizarding Wireless Network too, now...)