Tue, Apr. 08, 2008
Casino Sets Go, Collects
CK - Washington. A German Internet casino license limits the plaintiff casino to Internet games with persons resident in the state of Hesse. It sought to collect from a player who had faked an address in the state, had set no limit and argued that the casino website failed in its limit function. In addition, collection efforts should be barred as the online gambling business is immoral and the online contract is void under the Civil Code.
On April 3, 2008, the German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, Bundesgerichtshof, ruled in favor of the casino in the matter III ZR 190/07. Section 134 of the Civil Code does not apply because the casino did not violate statutory restrictions. In addition, it was properly licensed and sought to keep Internet gamblers in compliance with the terms of its license.
The court reviewed the limit issue from two perspectives. One, the fact that the license required a limit and the website did not enforce it, does not constitute a violation of the statute governing the casino, the court held. Two, the failure of the limit function did not lead to voidness by reason of unconscionability or reprehensibility under section 138 of the Civil Code.
CK - Washington. A German Internet casino license limits the plaintiff casino to Internet games with persons resident in the state of Hesse. It sought to collect from a player who had faked an address in the state, had set no limit and argued that the casino website failed in its limit function. In addition, collection efforts should be barred as the online gambling business is immoral and the online contract is void under the Civil Code.
On April 3, 2008, the German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, Bundesgerichtshof, ruled in favor of the casino in the matter III ZR 190/07. Section 134 of the Civil Code does not apply because the casino did not violate statutory restrictions. In addition, it was properly licensed and sought to keep Internet gamblers in compliance with the terms of its license.
The court reviewed the limit issue from two perspectives. One, the fact that the license required a limit and the website did not enforce it, does not constitute a violation of the statute governing the casino, the court held. Two, the failure of the limit function did not lead to voidness by reason of unconscionability or reprehensibility under section 138 of the Civil Code.
Permalink
CURRENT :: 2003 :: 2004 :: 2005 :: 2006 :: 2007 :: 2008 :: 2009 :: 2010 :: 2011
:: 2012
:: 2013
:: 2014
:: 2015
:: 2016
:: 2017
:: 2018
:: 2019
German Reports: