Comments on: Pub Quiz Windfall

Question: Pub Quiz Windfall

Pretty_Generic — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:39:53 -0800

I played the rock-hard quiz computer at a London pub, and lost. The machine informed me that I'd won £2, so I pressed collect. £4 came out. I continued collecting, without the onscreen figure of £2 diminishing. As a penniless student, I emptied the machine and departed in a trance-like state, with £66 (US$118). The barman congratulated me, saying I was the first person he'd ever seen win anything on it. Lovely chap.

Have I committed a crime?
(US Lawyers: since I'm a foreigner, I imagine it's OK to give your opinion here. But then, IANAL.)

I know, it's morally wrong by pretty much any standards. But... I'd had a bit to drink... I'm poor... this stuff only happens in books...

By: Quinbus Flestrin

Quinbus Flestrin — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:45:13 -0800

I think you just increased your money supply ;-)

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:52:48 -0800

Yes, but if you email me privately the address of this pub all charges will be dropped.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:55:25 -0800

it's not a crime if the machine was defective---i don't think they're like ATMs. (IANAL, but i am envious) : >

By: kindall

kindall — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:00:10 -0800

Reminds me of the time the change machine in the break room at my place of employment during college mysteriously started giving nearly a dollar's worth of change for a quarter. Including another quarter. It was like an infinite loop. It was sucked dry in pretty much no time, naturally.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:02:52 -0800

saying I was the first person he'd ever seen win anything on it

So you ripped off a machine designed to rip you off? MORAL DILEMNA HELL!

By: petebest

petebest — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:06:41 -0800

I proscribe one Tip the Barman, two Pints for a Friends, and one Rainy Day Fund Allotment. Then shall your hoarkaries be absolved, my son.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:10:00 -0800

Maybe the money you won, was yours and the other winners whom were never actually paid out. Paging Dobbs.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:10:40 -0800

I think this would make a great psychology experiment.

By: vito90

vito90 — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:23:20 -0800

Is this scenario akin to the Amazon "We have cameras" fiasco? Taking advantage of what you know to be a faulty piece of hardware or software? I don't think it's illegal, but I also hope you're not a regular at that pub because if they found out you won't be welcome back. And remember, the pub owner is the one losing that money, not just a machine. So, are you friends with the owner?

By: skylar

skylar — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:23:43 -0800

I don't see how you've broken any law. You didn't force the machine to give you money; the machine is designed to take money and at some point give winnings. Why should you be responsible for how much money it gives out? If there's a design flaw, is that your fault?

By the way... in which pub is the machine?

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:29:37 -0800

It's at the Queen's Head, near Turnpike Lane. They charge more for a pint of Coke than a pint of bitter, that kind of place. But, it has lots of pool tables.

I should have said, it was the first time the barman had seen someone win anything serious on it. People win one or two quid all the time.

petebest is absolutely right, and drinks have been bought. But to be honest, as a computer science student I know how easy it is for a quiz machine maker to write
if (money comes out of the little hole)
then { bank--;}

...I'm more interested academically in the legal aspect than I am in absolving my very limited guilt. I doubt anyone will notice anyway, and if they do the crappy machine manufacturer should be liable.

I'm rich, rich!

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:56:57 -0800

I'll send you several expired bus transfers for the film rights.

You see, the machine is controlled by the London mob, and they find this posting about the machine that the Queens Head barman said a yank computer whiz scammed...

Change your domicile, quick!

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:59:08 -0800

woop - we changed you to aq yak so's to appeal to the US market, plus we get the lovely 'lost bumpkin in Blimey' kinda deal.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:59:57 -0800

A YANK, argh.

sorry and shutting up now.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:08:59 -0800

I can't be a yak? I demand creative control.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:19:30 -0800

Here's the question: Is the machine broken because it gave you too much money, or is it broken because it didn't correctly display the amount of your winnings, which you indeed received?

By: i_cola

i_cola — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:29:52 -0800

It's a London thing...when I lived in Kentish Town the phone box at the end of the street wouldn't take the last credit from a phonecard...the corner resembled the United Nations at times & I got to listen to my team's 0898 match commentary for free as opposed to the 50 quid I wouldn't have spent if I'd had to pay.

Keep the money & spend it in the pub.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:32:08 -0800

monju_bosatsu: I lost. I shouldn't have got a sausage.

Maybe I am a tad guilty... :)

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:39:29 -0800

On a side note, in the US, if you win big where the machine displays a winning combination and the internal computer says you didn't win, you don't win (IE, say the screen says you get a Royal Flush, but the actual computer on the inside says you got a 2 pair, you don't get the winnings for a Royal Flush).

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Fri, 07 May 2004 16:07:01 -0800

There was an incident at Taco Bell a few years back where a drive-through customer got a bag full of the night's cash receipts instead of a bag full of food. It was fairly clear that the people who got the bag would be charged with theft if they didn't return it.

There's a concept in criminal law in the US called "willful ignorance" -- if you think you might be breaking the law and purposely try not to find out if you are, that's considered just as good as intent. We get our common law from you guys, so it might be the same.

I have no idea what this means for broken slot machines. I think a polite (anonymous) letter to the operator of the gaming machine might be the ethical solution.

By: Danelope

Danelope — Fri, 07 May 2004 16:38:30 -0800

I can't find anything that incidates liability in erroneous payout, which isn't to say that laws in the UK don't exist, but that they've not received much publicity or have yet to be tested.

General international concensus (I don't have specific links; because I spent about 40 minutes Googling this out of interest) is that most casinos and other gambling institutions post notice that all bets are void in the event of a malfunction. This is the same sort of "terms of service" clause that excuses Amazon from delivering cameras at great losses due to computer error. It does indicate that there are no fast laws protecting the casino/retailer/etc. from being forced to pay out, so they make up their own rules, to which you implicitly or explicitly agree before the financial transaction takes place.

Casinos also fight tooth and nail to declare every jackpot a malfunction, it seems, depriving even Catholic nuns from their winnings.

This brings up a more salient point: British law apparently demands that the type of "adult gaming device" you describe must pay out no more than £25.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 07 May 2004 19:42:05 -0800

So the machine owner actually broke the law by paying P_G more than 25 quid? [I used "quid" because I don't know how to make the spiffy L thingy. I hope I used it correctly.]

Awesome. If this was the U.S. there'd be a civil action.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 07 May 2004 19:53:19 -0800

Hey, PG, the "$14" guy might love to hook up with you!

By: anathema

anathema — Fri, 07 May 2004 20:22:15 -0800

Just take care of that soul, P_G. I'm watching you.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Fri, 07 May 2004 21:21:37 -0800

you have soiled the good name of metafilter , pg .
hand in your badge.

By: dodgygeezer

dodgygeezer — Sat, 08 May 2004 08:26:22 -0800

I would assume this was theft. For example, if you saw £66 quid sitting on the pavement and pocketed it instead of bringing it to a police station as lost property you'd strictly speaking be guilty of theft. Yes, it's silly for a person to leave money on the pavement and it's daft to have a machine spewing out coins left, right and centre but in either case it's money you're not entitled too.

I heard about this when speaking to a police man, which I remember because he told me something surprising. Apparently London cabbies, unlike anybody else in Britain, get paid for bringing in lost property to the tune of 10% of the items worth on the spot. Keeps them honest apparently. The copper expanded on this and so I'm led to believe that finders keepers is not enshrined in law.

Here's another thought. If you went up to a bookie who was, shall we say, a little bit confused and you got him to give you ridculous odds on a horse who's favorite. The horse wins and clean the poor old guy out. Somehow I think the law would take a dim view.

Having said that £66 isn't that much, so I doubt they'll be hunting down the Turnpike Kid!

By: dmt

dmt — Sat, 08 May 2004 11:58:32 -0800

This is not legal advice and is not to be relied upon as such. No liability is accepted by the provision of this academic information.

Depends on your views about dishonesty form the two part test from the Ghosh case.

1. Was what you did dishonest according to the standards of reasonable people?
2. Did you realise that reasonable, honest people would regard what you've done as dishonest?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the chances are that you've committed an offence under s.1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

By: theora55

theora55 — Sat, 08 May 2004 15:36:58 -0800

Thank you, vito, for the refernce to We have cameras. It always makes me laugh.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Sat, 08 May 2004 18:21:25 -0800

The only person who could reasonably expect to answer your question is a lawyer. Maybe you could pay for 15 minutes of one's time with the £66.