It is normal to expect a casino to pay a jackpot, regardless of the money that was won. It is natural, but here is a case of a person who did not get what she expected. The casino in this case is the opinion of Aurea Privee trying to use a loophole to get away with her one million dollars jackpot win.
Privee, a retiree with a love for gambling was trying out her luck in the fiesta casino’s poker machines. It was not her first time playing the Penny poker machines; she had tries for several years and did not win. As usual, she was there to try her luck one more time and it was this time that lady lucky smiled and she hit the one million dollar jackpot. The chances of winning this jackpot is one in a million and this seemed to the first one after a long dry spell. All she expected was the casino to pay a jackpot and let her be, only to be surprised. This is what the casino came up with.
The machine Privee was playing with apparently had ‘malfunctioned’ according to the casino and it was not a one million dollar machine, but rather one fiftieth of that; $20000. The machine had just dropped $1000000 and it has suddenly malfunctioned, how convenient is that? this was a way of escaping the responsibility of pay a jackpot, and Privee was not about to give in. to add to that, the management said that the one million wasn’t right, that she had poor vision which as a result made her see one million instead of $20,000
She hired a lawyer to press the casino to pay a jackpot. The lawyer sought to know how the machine malfunctioned and whose responsibility it was to make sure the machines were taken care of. The prosecution argued that if this was a case of malfunction (a fact they could not prove) it was a loss to the defense due to their own negligence. The prosecution had strong case which the defense does not have.
It was going to be hard in the circumstances to define malfunction as a term to benefit the defense. The defense came with their malfunction explanation, saying that they did not upgrade the software. This implied that they were negligent in doing something that was their duty and the winner was entitled to the money so the casino is to pay a jackpot.
In theory, the casino has to pay the jackpot but the practicality of it makes everything complicated. so complicated that she has a better chance of winning another jackpot than winning her money from the decision of the gaming board. This is because this is a case to be heard by the gaming board which is going to take a long time as the wheel of justice grinds very slowly. It is ironical and depicts the real casino owners, who do not like the idea of pay a jackpot to the real winners.
This article was written by Alexis.
Tags: casino jackpot, jackpot