Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited October 19, 2020, 11:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Man dropped from lottery syndicate wins share in court

Nov 13, 2011, 11:47 am

Share this news story on Facebook
Tweet this news story on Twitter
InternationalInternational: Man dropped from lottery syndicate wins share in court

A Melbourne, Austrailia, accountant has won his share of an $867,000 Tattslotto first division prize, three years after he was dropped from a 10-member Big Kahuna house syndicate.

A "thrilled" Danny Watson and his legal team beamed outside court after a magistrate found a newsagent and his company guilty of false and misleading conduct over the handling of the syndicate.

The magistrate said Mr Watson, a regular participant in the Fitzroy agency's system 17 entry, was entitled to damages of $86,700 — his 10 per cent share of the prize — less the $741.95 ticket cost.

Mr Watson had bought stationery and newspapers at Mark Pezzin's outlet and had joined 14 of his lottery draws over several years before super draw 2847 on November 1, 2008.

The Melbourne Magistrates' Court heard last year before Friday's judgment that sometimes Mr Watson did not pay Mr Pezzin before a Saturday draw, but did so the following Monday. On another occasion, when the syndicate won nothing, Mr Watson still felt obliged to later pay.

After Mr Pezzin phoned him two weeks before the super draw to test his interest in joining the Big Kahuna, Mr Watson attended the agency where he said he wanted a share and Mr Pezzin "pencilled" him in on the syndicate sheet.

The day before the draw, Mr Watson arrived at the agency intending to pay, but left after finding Mr Pezzin was absent.

On the Saturday, Mr Pezzin sold the share to another customer as Mr Watson did not show. The following Monday, Mr Watson appeared at the outlet and told Mr Pezzin: "I suppose I owe you some money [for my share]?"

When told no, he asked why. Mr Pezzin said he had been unable to contact him and that he did not want a debt.

Told that the syndicate had won first division, Mr Watson responded: "Then you are going to have problems."

Mr Goldberg was satisfied that Mr Pezzin had encouraged Mr Watson to enter the draw and his intended participation was recorded. He said the most compelling evidence was Mr Watson attending the agency after the draw, ready to pay despite not knowing if the syndicate had won or not.

Mr Goldberg found Mr Pezzin (who had denied liability) and Namberry Craft Pty Ltd guilty of false and misleading conduct and awarded damages.

"We're thrilled," Mr Watson's solicitor Rose Mary Brondolino and barrister Lachlan Watts later told The Age. Mr Pezzin did not return calls from The Age.

The Age

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

13 comments. Last comment 9 years ago by KY Floyd.
Page 1 of 1
Slick Nick's avatar - RYc5Gcw
Rochester
United States
Member #103278
January 1, 2011
952 Posts
Offline

I think the court ruled correctly in this case. I Agree!    I run group lotteries at work, the on again off again players are discouraged. This case is different. I also hold every bet/lottery slip from week to week to show a history of who played and who didn't.

Money is a terrible master, but a great servant...Smile

    psykomo's avatar - animal shark.jpg

    United States
    Member #4877
    May 30, 2004
    5289 Posts
    Offline

     What ever happened 2 first come (with D money) first served?

     Would Mr.Watson have paid 741.95 if Mr.Pezzin lost??

     Could Mr. Pezzin collect 741.95 for a "COLD" ticket???

     PartyJack-in-the-BoxPartylet"$ play 4D Puke JACKPOT!!!!!!


      United States
      Member #108376
      March 25, 2011
      505 Posts
      Offline

      this just serves as a warning to anyone stupid enough to join one of these office or workplace "pools" that it isn't a very sound idea to do it. don't do it. it doesn't increase your chances of winning significantly enough to warrant the problems you will encounter later. sharing is never a good idea anyway with anything or anybody.

        Slick Nick's avatar - RYc5Gcw
        Rochester
        United States
        Member #103278
        January 1, 2011
        952 Posts
        Offline

        It all depends on how organized you are. You have to be on top of things in a professional way, and have a witness, or witnesses. Sharing is a good thing if one can afford it. Just don't overdo it.

        Money is a terrible master, but a great servant...Smile

          maringoman's avatar - images q=tbn:ANd9GcTbRxpKQmOfcCoUqF2FyqIOAwDo7rg9G-lfJLAALPGWJWwiz19eRw
          Massachusetts
          United States
          Member #37432
          April 14, 2006
          2747 Posts
          Offline

          After all the drama I have seen with those syndicates right here on lottery post I decided to kick it solo. They're not worth it. Whats the joy in winning $200M then spending years fighting for it in the courts? Some people will always be greedy and the lawyers will always be ready to try get them money they dont deserve.

          That money's gone fo ever

            Bondi Junction
            Australia
            Member #57240
            December 24, 2007
            1102 Posts
            Offline

            I never go into syndicates, they can be very messy. I am happy for Mr Watson, the court seems to have made the right decision, as he was a regular customer, bought other items at the shop and was well known to the the shopkeeper. If it had been me, I don't thing I would have taken action, I would just take my business elsewhere.

            We all get a lot out of lotteries!

              Avatar

              United States
              Member #26329
              November 16, 2005
              330 Posts
              Offline

              this just serves as a warning to anyone stupid enough to join one of these office or workplace "pools" that it isn't a very sound idea to do it. don't do it. it doesn't increase your chances of winning significantly enough to warrant the problems you will encounter later. sharing is never a good idea anyway with anything or anybody.

              Agreed!  Joining a pool seems like a losing idea no matter how anyone puts it...There is no significant increase in the chances and nothing but trouble over hadling of money or other issues.  I always made sure to make it perfectly clear I was NOT in any pool at work because I didn't want lawsuits if one of my personal lottery tickets hit!   I am more than willing to share my dreams of what I will do with a win but I don't want the trouble of involving other people when VERY LARGE amounts of money are involved.   Good luck to all but if you aren't around to help buy don't expect any returns...   Cheers

                time*treat's avatar - radar

                United States
                Member #13130
                March 30, 2005
                2171 Posts
                Offline

                The day before the draw, Mr Watson arrived at the agency intending to pay, but left after finding Mr Pezzin was absent. -- but between that day and the next, he couldn't manage to intend his way to a terminal and play the numbers, himself.

                That's a crappy ruling. Thumbs Down

                Mr. Pezzin's mistake was in ever allowing this haphazard pattern of participation & post-payment to develop.

                10 shares paid in, now Mr. Pezzin'll have to give up his share to satisfy an 11th claim. Dead

                In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

                  savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho
                  adelaide sa
                  Australia
                  Member #37135
                  April 11, 2006
                  3340 Posts
                  Offline

                  yeah its a crap ruling

                  " Still swinging, still missing "
                  2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016  = -1171; 2017 = -1257 ; 2018 = - 1380 =  TOT =  - 6233

                  keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= -424; 2017 =-427; 2018= -223   TOT = -3968

                  :

                    rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                    100
                    Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                    United States
                    Member #73902
                    April 28, 2009
                    14903 Posts
                    Offline

                    You can't let him pay a day late when you lose and then change the rules when you win.

                    Pezzin's fault for not having established and enforced rules.


                                                                 
                                         
                                                             

                     

                     

                     

                     

                                                                                                                       

                    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                --Edmund Burke

                     

                     

                      dpoly1's avatar - driver
                      PA
                      United States
                      Member #66139
                      October 16, 2008
                      1991 Posts
                      Offline

                      Just another reason not to visit Australia!  Smash

                        RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
                        100
                        mid-Ohio
                        United States
                        Member #9
                        March 24, 2001
                        20272 Posts
                        Offline

                        The magistrate said Mr Watson, a regular participant in the Fitzroy agency's system 17 entry, was entitled to damages of $86,700 — his 10 per cent share of the prize — less the $741.95 ticket cost.

                        That like saying what you "intended to do" is a good substitute for what "you should have done" when deciding winners in a lottery. 

                        If someone you know wins a lottery and you can convince the magistrate you intended to share the cost of their tickets, they have to share their winnings minus what they spent even if they assumed you weren't by your actions or lack of action.

                        I wonder if in the future a lottery loser trying to recoup some of his loses by claiming he was told by someone that they would share the cost of his tickets but backed out after the drawing will have a case for making them share the cost of his lost.

                         * you don't need to buy every combination, just the winning ones * 

                        Thumbs Up       

                          KY Floyd's avatar - lysol avatar.jpg
                          NY
                          United States
                          Member #23834
                          October 16, 2005
                          4264 Posts
                          Offline

                          "Whats the joy in winning $200M then spending years fighting for it in the courts?"

                          Oh the horror. I'd just hate to have to put in 3 years of effort to get 10 or 20 million bucks.

                          "10 shares paid in, now Mr. Pezzin'll have to give up his share to satisfy an 11th claim."

                          That's what happens when you're bad at running your business. When you sell one item twice you have to figure out a way to satisfy both buyers.

                          "That like saying what you "intended to do" is a good substitute for what "you should have done" when deciding winners in a lottery. "

                          What you intended to do is what matter in contract law, and that's exactly what this was about. Pezzin committed a share to Watson, and the judge enforced the contract.