Talk:Ivey v Genting Casinos
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ivey v Genting Casinos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Obiter?
[edit]The "Decision" section states:
The Supreme Court held that Ivey was not entitled to the payment sought from Genting Casinos because he was dishonest.
By contrast, Phil Ivey#Edge-sorting litigation says:
The court concluded that Ivey's actions constituted cheating and that, had it been necessary to make a finding on dishonesty, it would have determined that Ivey's "conduct was dishonest".
These statements contradict each other. The latter claim is that it was not necessary for the court to determine whether he had been dishonest because dishonesty is not a necessary component of cheating at civil law, but (obiter dicta) that he had been dishonest. The former claims on the other hand that dishonesty was an essential component of the ruling. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)