Lottery syndicates

Clive_Woody

geordie_joe wrote: »

If anyone disagrees with my previous post could the PM me urgently.

They may be interested in my lottery scheme. It's quite simple, we put on 100 lines that are arranged to dramatically increase our chances of winning.

I put in £1 and the other person puts in £99 and we split the winnings 50/50.

[strike]I[/strike] We can't lose!

Excellent idea. If you want to send me your contributions for the next few year by Western Union. Please make your payment to Sheik Abdula Mick, former Prince of Nigeria and the Solomon Isles, this is a 100% legitamate and honest offer that is backed by the bank of Nigeria and Engineer Smith.

torbrex

ovetta2001 wrote: »

This is a bit confusing so sorry if i lose you (i'm still not quite with it).

Two girls at work buy lottery tickets together (i used to with them and am now kicking myself). Two weeks ago they won £10. Tracy wanted just to put the tenner back in but angela refused to. Sooo Tracy put in her £5 and Angela put in her £1 as normal. Sods law is that they then won a couple of grand.

Now these two have fallen out because Angela says she should get half but tracy says she only put in £1 so she should only get 1/6. Now I agree with her and i think tough !!!!!! to Angela who wanted her £5 so bad. She is even threatening to take her to court (so as you can guess work is wonderful right now).

But to the point. My manager is agreeing with Angela. I think I'm right but maybe I'm wrong

They should refer back to their original lottery agreement, signed and witness by all parties, the document states how the winnings are split in relationship to how much each member staked.
No written agreement, no court action.

geordie_joe

moonrakerz wrote: »

It may sound a bit extreme to draw up a formal document between a bunch of "friends" - but when money is involved it's amazing how quickly friends can fall out.

Too true, as shown by the number of lottery winning who have ended up in the divorce court. friends and spouses are priceless, until you can gain a large amount of money by falling out with them!

geordie_joe

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Excellent idea. If you want to send me your contributions for the next few year by Western Union. Please make your payment to Sheik Abdula Mick, former Prince of Nigeria and the Solomon Isles, this is a 100% legitamate and honest offer that is backed by the bank of Nigeria and Engineer Smith.

OK, I guess if Engineer Smith is backing it I can trust you to send me my share of the winnings.

twistedeagle

Is there a written agreement between the two?

Just thinking if not then the person who bought the ticket can claim the lot.

In terms of this case, you could argue that as per the agreement, Angela has fulfilled her side of the contract as she contributed her usual £1. If Tracy decided to put in a bonus amount then this should have no bearing on the matter. If Tracy really cared about taking the lions share, maybe she should have used the £4 extra to buy 4 lines for herself so that the "syndicate" ticket had the usual 2 lines on it.

geordie_joe

twistedeagle wrote: »

Is there a written agreement between the two?

Just thinking if not then the person who bought the ticket can claim the lot.

In terms of this case, you could argue that as per the agreement, Angela has fulfilled her side of the contract as she contributed her usual £1. If Tracy decided to put in a bonus amount then this should have no bearing on the matter. If Tracy really cared about taking the lions share, maybe she should have used the £4 extra to buy 4 lines for herself so that the "syndicate" ticket had the usual 2 lines on it.

On the other hand, if there is no written agreement we have to assume that both parties verbally agreed to share the winnings equally, and also agreed to pay the same amount. Both parties had the opportunity to pay in £5 that week, but one party refused to pay in the same amount as the other, therefore breaking part of the verbal agreement.

We must also assume that that party made no objection to the other party increasing the stake.

Verbal or written, you only get equal shares when you take equal risk.

john_s_2

The way I see this...

The usual arrangement is £1 a week each. But Tracy wanted to increase this to £5 each for one week. Angela disagreed. So the way I see it is that they should have just put £1 each in as that is the normal agreement and they hadn't both agreed to change it.

So effectively the extra four tickets that Tracy bought were hers, and hers alone. And there's the rub. She could argue that it was one of her tickets that won, and Angela gets diddly. But on the other hand, if it was one of the other two (shared) tickets that won then it should be 50/50.

What a sorry mess. Sod's law indeed! Did they discuss the fact that they had put in unequal amounts before the draw was made? And what they would do if they won a large prize? Even if they did I bet one or the other would claim to have not had the conversation.

I hope it gets resolved soon!

ovetta2001

It ha turned into a right mess now.

Angela refused and has filled to sue Tracy. So tracy has countered this. The lines were all on one ticket and it is line 5 that wins. Angela can either take the 1/6 or if taken to court then Tracy is going to say it wasnt the first two lines whcih were their tickets together and the winnings are all hers.

What fun the office can be.

Mojisola

Did they use the same numbers each week?

Who has actually got the winning ticket?

ovetta2001

They always did lucky dips.

Tracy has the ticket because she bought it.