€500,000 Lotto ticket

paky

Last week, a tesco cashier issued a customer with a 9euro lottery ticket when a 4euro one was requested. The lottery ticket wasnt made void so she stuck it to the side of the till and marked it with a smiley face. The cashier intended to buy this ticket but made no attempt till the next day to do so when her manager stopped her.
I think because of this persons incompetence as a cashier to issue the right ticket to the customer and then have the cheek to attempt to buy the winning ticket the next day, that she deserves nothing. I think the fairest thing to do would be to make the ticket void as there seems to be no ownership of the ticket. If tescos claim the money i think it would be unfair to the customer who seems to be the biggest loser in all of this.
What do you think?

maximoose

I dont think the customer has anything to complain about, they aren't entitled to the ticket thats for certain.

paky

maximoose wrote: »

I dont think the customer has anything to complain about, they aren't entitled to the ticket thats for certain.

how so?

paky

paky wrote: »

how so?

The customer got the €4 ticket she asked for.

KERSPLAT!

More details here:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tesco-cashier-at-centre-of-euro500000-lotto-ticket-dispute-not-at-work-2612605.html

maximoose

Deleted User wrote: »

The customer got the €4 ticket she asked for.

Exactly, so they have no claim to this money. What's up in the air now is did the cashier really set it aside to purchase the ticket before it was revealed to be a winner.

Mr. Presentable

The article fails to state when the ticket was issued, when the draw was or when the belated attempt to buy it was made. What's the point?

The likely scenario:
If the ticket was issued on Friday, the draw made on Friday and the purchase attempted on Saturday the ticket belongs to Tesco, as they will have paid for it prior to the draw. Tickets must be bought before the draw.

MagicSean

maximoose wrote: »

Exactly, so they have no claim to this money. What's up in the air now is did the cashier really set it aside to purchase the ticket before it was revealed to be a winner.

This may be decided by the smiley face she allegedly drew on the ticket as that would indicate she didn't intend to sell it. On the other hand, wether she intended to or not the fact is she didn't buy it nor did she take it home or come to any kind of agreement with the shop about buying it.

k_mac

k_mac wrote: »

This may be decided by the smiley face she allegedly drew on the ticket as that would indicate she didn't intend to sell it. On the other hand, wether she intended to or not the fact is she didn't buy it nor did she take it home or come to any kind of agreement with the shop about buying it.

I really hope she wins this case and in future drawing a smiley face on something can be deemed proper consideration for the purposes of contract law.

In all seriousness though, this is a joke of a case. Tesco hold the entitlement and should, and it appears are, giving it to charity. Well played them, that girls solicitor should tell her she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

blueythebear

paky wrote: »

Last week, a tesco cashier issued a customer with a 9euro lottery ticket when a 4euro one was requested. The lottery ticket wasnt made void so she stuck it to the side of the till and marked it with a smiley face. The cashier intended to buy this ticket but made no attempt till the next day to do so when her manager stopped her.
I think because of this persons incompetence as a cashier to issue the right ticket to the customer and then have the cheek to attempt to buy the winning ticket the next day, that she deserves nothing. I think the fairest thing to do would be to make the ticket void as there seems to be no ownership of the ticket. If tescos claim the money i think it would be unfair to the customer who seems to be the biggest loser in all of this.
What do you think?

She never gave consideration for the ticket, therefore no contract. Tesco acts as an agent for the National Lottery when selling the tickets so that ownership would presumably vest in Tesco until they sell it on.

Would the cashier have sought to buy the ticket the next day if it wasn't a winner? I can't imagine she would have. She obviously left it there and came in the next day to check the numbers. She may have done this before in relation to small awards and a blind eye was perhaps turned but in this case, it's completely dishonest. She's taking the benefit of the lottery (a winning ticket) without any of the risk (by not buying a ticket).

I hope the case is dismissed and costs are awarded against her to be honest.

seamus

I did initially think at first that it was a bit of a fast one. Would she have paid for the ticket the next day if it has lost? Would she hell.

However, there's a little more info in a related Indo article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/accidental-ticket-is-uncharted-legal-terrain-2612604.html

It would appear that standard policy (perhaps at this Tesco store) is "pay for your mistakes", so when a cashier issues an incorrect ticket, they either must sell it that night or pay for it. I.e. she was going to pay for the ticket either way. Hence the "sad smiley face". Standard operating practice in all large retail stores is that the cashier cannot sell things to themselves (for obvious reasons), so she could not have paid for it on the night, and left it to pay for the next day when someone else would be working the till.

So I think there is a valid query here over ownership. If it's standard practice, perhaps even policy that all cashiers must pay for tickets issued in error, then perhaps a contract does exist and the ticket belongs to the cashier, the debt simply had not been discharged yet.

If you examine it in the context that she was required (either by contract or agreement) to pay for the ticket, but Tesco decided to waive that requirement because it was a winning ticket, then I would see how and why she has a valid grievance, and I would personally feel more than a little pissed off - i.e. they want staff to pay for losing tickets, but not for winning ones. In that case, Tesco are taking none of the risk and taking all of the winnings.

dave1982

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Tickets must be bought before the draw.

I think thats the killer for everyone it's tescos.Unless some one else pays for it before the draw

carpediem

seamus wrote: »

I did initially think at first that it was a bit of a fast one. Would she have paid for the ticket the next day if it has lost? Would she hell.

However, there's a little more info in a related Indo article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/accidental-ticket-is-uncharted-legal-terrain-2612604.html

It would appear that standard policy (perhaps at this Tesco store) is "pay for your mistakes", so when a cashier issues an incorrect ticket, they either must sell it that night or pay for it. I.e. she was going to pay for the ticket either way. Hence the "sad smiley face". Standard operating practice in all large retail stores is that the cashier cannot sell things to themselves (for obvious reasons), so she could not have paid for it on the night, and left it to pay for the next day when someone else would be working the till.

So I think there is a valid query here over ownership. If it's standard practice, perhaps even policy that all cashiers must pay for tickets issued in error, then perhaps a contract does exist and the ticket belongs to the cashier, the debt simply had not been discharged yet.

If you examine it in the context that she was required (either by contract or agreement) to pay for the ticket, but Tesco decided to waive that requirement because it was a winning ticket, then I would see how and why she has a valid grievance, and I would personally feel more than a little pissed off - i.e. they want staff to pay for losing tickets, but not for winning ones. In that case, Tesco are taking none of the risk and taking all of the winnings.

Crucial details are missing in order for a decision to be taken on this case. Those details will come out over time.

What about the purchaser of the ticket? The purchaser didn't make any mistake by requesting a €4 ticket - the Tesco cashier made the mistake by issuing a €9 ticket in error.

Consider this scenario: If the cashier had not made the mistake, would the same numbers have ended-up on the €4 ticket? The timing of printing the ticket would have been the same. What is not known at this stage is on which lines of the incorrect €9 ticket did the winning numbers appear? If the winning numbers appeared on the lines within €4 worth of numbers, then surely the customer has some rights here?

Are the customer's rights over-ruled as he/she handed the wrong ticket back to the cashier?

Will be interesting to see how this case unravels. The Supply of goods and Sales of Services act of 1980 will come into question here.

seamus

carpediem wrote: »

Consider this scenario: If the cashier had not made the mistake, would the same numbers have ended-up on the €4 ticket? The timing of printing the ticket would have been the same. What is not known at this stage is on which lines of the incorrect €9 ticket did the winning numbers appear? If the winning numbers appeared on the lines within €4 worth of numbers, then surely the customer has some rights here?

Well, taking a technical point of view (I'm a programmer in part), there wouldn't be much a of a case there.

We can take it for granted that the customer's €4 was a quickpick. If they had chosen the numbers on the ticket, then their €4 ticket would have won. It didn't.
Quickpick is a randomly generated set of numbers. Random selections usually rely on a "seed" - a piece of information which varies from selection to selection to attempt to make it unlikely that one selection will be the same as the next one. Seeds are often made from or derived from the current time, in milliseconds. So there's an argument to say that the time taken to input a €9 ticket, differs from the time taken to input a €4 ticket, so even if the cashier had input a €4 ticket, it would have had a different seed, and most likely resulted in a different set of numbers. The odds of the customer's €4 quickpick having the same four (?) lines as the €9 quickpick, would be quite astronomical. Around 1 in 3.2 × 10^25.

So from a technical POV, I don't think the customer has any real case here as the odds of his/her ticket containing those four lines is infinitesimally small.

234

What sections of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 are you reffering to. As regards the customer, if they never paid for the first ticket then there was no contract of sale, they paid for the second ticket and that's what tye got. I don't see the argument in the fact that the numbers on the first ticket may have changed those on the second ticket. At the time of purchase (the point at which any claim would crystalise) the numbers were meaningless and the fact that they were the winning numbers was still speculative. If you accept the argument that a cashier made a mistake and this influenced the order of the numbers on a given ticket which caused the customer to loose out on the lotto winnings then you could sue a shop if they let somebody skip in a queue and buy a lotto ticket before you which won. Or if they skipped the queue, bought a lotto ticket, then you bought the winning lotto ticket could they claim off the shop arguing that if they had not been allowed to skip the queue they would have got the winning numbers.
Anyway, the numbers are probably randomly generated, it's not unusual for there to be more than one winner so I don't think you can assume that the quick pick numbers are chosen from some hugh sequenital list of combinations.

carpediem

seamus wrote: »

The odds of the customer's €4 quickpick having the same four (?) lines as the €9 quickpick, would be quite astronomical. Around 1 in 3.2 × 10^25.

So from a technical POV, I don't think the customer has any real case here as the odds of his/her ticket containing those four lines is infinitesimally small.

Never mentioned anything in my post re the same numbers appearing on both the incorrect and correct tickets. It's the possibility of the winning numbers appearing on correct (€4) instead of on the incorrect (€9) ticket. In other words, if the €9 ticket had never been printed, what numbers would have shown up on the €4 ticket? Nobody really knows but it should be considered when debating the subject.

RedXIV

carpediem wrote: »

Never mentioned anything in my post re the same numbers appearing on both the incorrect and correct tickets. It's the possibility of the winning numbers appearing on correct (€4) instead of on the incorrect (€9) ticket. In other words, if the €9 ticket had never been printed, what numbers would have shown up on the €4 ticket? Nobody really knows but it should be considered when debating the subject.

well actually, if you think about it, its relatively easy to find out. on the basic assumptions that
1) the numbers were generated using the time in millseconds as a seed for the random functionality and
2) that it takes the same amount of time to create a €4 and €9 ticket

then there is no reason to believe that the numbers wouldn't have shown up on the original ticket


Personally I think the money should stay with Tesco, She tried to buy the ticket AFTER the draw, while the draw was on, Tesco was the legal owner of the ticket and their intention to donate the money is admirable

carpediem

234 wrote: »

What sections of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 are you reffering to. As regards the customer, if they never paid for the first ticket then there was no contract of sale, they paid for the second ticket and that's what tye got. I don't see the argument in the fact that the numbers on the first ticket may have changed those on the second ticket. At the time of purchase (the point at which any claim would crystalise) the numbers were meaningless and the fact that they were the winning numbers was still speculative. If you accept the argument that a cashier made a mistake and this influenced the order of the numbers on a given ticket which caused the customer to loose out on the lotto winnings then you could sue a shop if they let somebody skip in a queue and buy a lotto ticket before you which won. Or if they skipped the queue, bought a lotto ticket, then you bought the winning lotto ticket could they claim off the shop arguing that if they had not been allowed to skip the queue they would have got the winning numbers.
Anyway, the numbers are probably randomly generated, it's not unusual for there to be more than one winner so I don't think you can assume that the quick pick numbers are chosen from some hugh sequenital list of combinations.

Customer agreed to purchase a product and the wrong product was initially presented. That is the root-cause of the entire case here. The mistake on the part of the cashier then transpired to be monumental. There are degrees of "hind-sight is 20/20" here, however, it is an exceptional case after all. Consumer rights must be considered.

seamus

carpediem wrote: »

In other words, if the €9 ticket had never been printed, what numbers would have shown up on the €4 ticket? Nobody really knows but it should be considered when debating the subject.

Not really because it's a "what if".
In reality, the customers odds of winning were not changed by the issuing of the incorrect ticket. Even if they had received four different lines, that wouldn't have changed their odds of winning any cash amount, so they have no case.

Customer agreed to purchase a product and the wrong product was initially presented. That is the root-cause of the entire case here.

The contract was fulfilled though. The wrong product was initially supplied, but then replaced with the correct product. Remember that the product is a €4 quickpick. Not a specific set of numbers.

The mistake on the part of the cashier then transpired to be monumental.

Not really. The mistake on the cashier's part is inconsequential to the customer. They did not alter the outcome of the draw or the customer's chances of winning by issuing the incorrect ticket.

234

carpediem wrote: »

Customer agreed to purchase a product and the wrong product was initially presented. That is the root-cause of the entire case here. The mistake on the part of the cashier then transpired to be monumental. There are degrees of "hind-sight is 20/20" here, however, it is an exceptional case after all. Consumer rights must be considered.

Yes, the customer agreed but at that stage no contract of sale had been concluded. This only happened when the customer provided consideration (money in this case) for the good offered. So the contract only existed in repsect of the second ticket, no contract was ever created in respect of the first. No contract of sale, therefore no consumer rights issue.
Also, just because there is a possible issue of consumer rights here does not mean the 1980 Act is of any relevance. Can you point out anything that would be relevant if there had been a contract in respect of the first ticket?

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

I did initially think at first that it was a bit of a fast one. Would she have paid for the ticket the next day if it has lost? Would she hell.

However, there's a little more info in a related Indo article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/accidental-ticket-is-uncharted-legal-terrain-2612604.html

It would appear that standard policy (perhaps at this Tesco store) is "pay for your mistakes", so when a cashier issues an incorrect ticket, they either must sell it that night or pay for it. I.e. she was going to pay for the ticket either way. Hence the "sad smiley face".

You are relying there on a point made by the cashier's solicitor, read the article again....

Andrea O'Reilly's lawyers have indicated they will seek to rely on the common practice at Tesco in Navan for employees who hit the wrong button to buy the ticket.

A pretty self-serving point, if it's true which I doubt it is. If she was required to buy the ticket then she would have taken it home in case it was a winner and someone came in early the next day and robbed it. By sticking it to the side of the till she obviously figured it was someone else's problem and effectively relinquished any claim she might have on the ticket. Her case has no merit as far as I can see.

paky

if tescos are going to donate the money to charity they should set aside some of the winnings for the customer involved. i dont think its fair that they lose out

seamus

coylemj wrote: »

If she was required to buy the ticket then she would have taken it home in case it was a winner and someone came in early the next day and robbed it.

The odds of it being a winner would be so low that the need to "protect" it would not be considered. Taking it home would also be folly because she may forget to pay it, and she could be accused of stealing.

However that does raise another question - if she thought that taking it with her would be "stealing", then in all likelihood she's admitting that the ticket didn't belong to her.

By sticking it to the side of the till she obviously figured it was someone else's problem and effectively relinquished any claim she might have on the ticket.

The purpose of sticking it on the side of the till is as I mentioned - she isn't permitted to put her own cash in the till while she's working on it, but the ticket doesn't go in the till, so she likely put it there to remind her (or someone else) that it's to be paid for the next day.

She probably worked that till most of the time, so it would depend on the routine. I would imagine that the routine is to stick the ticket to the till, then when the supervisor brings the float around the next morning, the supervisor logs onto the till and puts the transaction through.

Hopefully the media follow this one though, it's an interesting case. Lots more info needed to draw any conclustions.

carpediem

paky wrote: »

if tescos are going to donate the money to charity they should set aside some of the winnings for the customer involved. i dont think its fair that they lose out

Agree with you 100% Paky!

carpediem

seamus wrote: »

Not really because it's a "what if".
In reality, the customers odds of winning were not changed by the issuing of the incorrect ticket. Even if they had received four different lines, that wouldn't have changed their odds of winning any cash amount, so they have no case.

The contract was fulfilled though. The wrong product was initially supplied, but then replaced with the correct product. Remember that the product is a €4 quickpick. Not a specific set of numbers.
Not really. The mistake on the cashier's part is inconsequential to the customer. They did not alter the outcome of the draw or the customer's chances of winning by issuing the incorrect ticket.

The bottom line is that if the cashier had not made a mistake, the outcome would have been different. Just how different? Well, nobody really knows as we don't have all the facts. Often times, exceptional cases like this one are the basis for new laws and regulations being introduced.

seamus

There is also something else to consider here;

If this falls in Tesco's favour and they are deemed to "own" the ticket at the time that the draw took place, is there reasonable action here for all staff to refuse to pay for tickets issued in error, since said tickets never belonged to the staff. And would Tesco have to refund all previous such occurences. That is, the staff member is paying Tesco for the ticket on the understanding that the ticket belongs to the staff member at the time of the draw. If this can be shown not to be true, then are Tesco liable for all the payments they received for tickets despite the tickets not legally belonging to the staff member at the time of the draw?
That is, Tesco received payment for a ticket for a draw (whether the payment was received before or after the draw may or may not be important). But if the ticket "belonged" to Tesco before the draw took place, then they never provided a ticket for that draw.

The bottom line is that if the cashier had not made a mistake, the outcome would have been different.

Not for the customer. From the customer's point of view, the ticket they received is of exactly the same value and quality as any other ticket issued for that draw.
Otherwise you could argue that because I didn't win last week, then I didn't receive a ticket of the same value and quality as someone who won.

For the customer, the cashier did not affect the outcome of the draw by making the mistake. The customer is not due anything because they have no demonstrable losses.

BrianD

paky wrote: »

if tescos are going to donate the money to charity they should set aside some of the winnings for the customer involved. i dont think its fair that they lose out

The customer didn't lose out. Their odds of winning never changed.

The situation regarding the cashier is interesting. I suppose it will rest on a legal interpretation of how you pay for your mistakes. Do they pay on the spot or is it deducted? Technically would ownership not rest with Tesco 'till payment is made. Payment would have to be made before the draw and in any case those Tesco have to sell the shop assistant that particular ticket?

28064212

carpediem wrote: »

The bottom line is that if the cashier had not made a mistake, the outcome would have been different. Just how different? Well, nobody really knows as we don't have all the facts. Often times, exceptional cases like this one are the basis for new laws and regulations being introduced.

With regard to the customer, if they had lodged a claim before the draw, on the basis that they didn't get the 4 sets of numbers they would've got if she didn't make a mistake, would there be any grounds for a claim? I don't think so.

Similarly, they couldn't make a claim on the basis that the cashier might have hesitated slightly before pressing a button, therefore the random number generator was different

MagicSean

paky wrote: »

if tescos are going to donate the money to charity they should set aside some of the winnings for the customer involved. i dont think its fair that they lose out

Not a chance. He got what he asked for. He could have easily paid the extra for the ticket if he wished.

Bella mamma

Last Friday night, at Tesco The Square Tallaght around 7.30pm, the man in front of me asked for a lotto ticket. The cashier gave him the ticket and he lost the head with her cos it was for Saturday's Lotto draw, and not that Friday's Euromillions draw. He had never asked for a Euromillions ticket.

The abuse continued and she politely reissued him with a Euromillions ticket.

I wonder what happened with this ticket.............

MASTER...of the bra

If I was the customer who got this €9 ticket by mistake I would have had to buy it Just incase.

Hell, if I didn't have €9 on me I would have went to the car/home/atm to get it and went back to Tesco.

If Tesco do have a policy where accidentally printed or unwanted tickets must be purchased by staff, then I believe the staff member shoud get the winning money. Open and shut case.


However, if Tesco don't operate that policy, and the ticket becomes obsolete (and Tesco claim back from the lottery or such for unissued tickets) then I think Tesco deserve the money.

Tesco can't have it both ways. They can't make people pay for things and still claim ownership. That's unfair and if Tesco took this money, and I were an employee, i'd certainly chase them up for money owed to me for bullying me into purchases i never wanted.

Jesus Wept

Checkout woman owns ticket.
Tesco owe €4 person 500k.

The-Rigger

The-Rigger wrote: »

Checkout woman owns ticket.
Tesco owe €4 person 500k.

€4 Person, ie; the customer, got their ticket and should get no more.

234

The-Rigger wrote: »

Checkout woman owns ticket.
Tesco owe €4 person 500k.

Completely incorrect.

Jesus Wept

:rolleyes:

NinjaTruncs

carpediem wrote: »

What about the purchaser of the ticket? The purchaser didn't make any mistake by requesting a €4 ticket - the Tesco cashier made the mistake by issuing a €9 ticket in error.

Consider this scenario: If the cashier had not made the mistake, would the same numbers have ended-up on the €4 ticket? The timing of printing the ticket would have been the same. What is not known at this stage is on which lines of the incorrect €9 ticket did the winning numbers appear? If the winning numbers appeared on the lines within €4 worth of numbers, then surely the customer has some rights here?

This scenario is not possible, a €4 ticket is only for the Main draw, there is no way to have a €4 ticket include the Extra draw, which the €500K was won on. So if the cashier did not make the mistake the €500K would not have been won.

234

I think that just solved all the hand wringing on this thread. It's always the simple solutions that are the best!

carpediem

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

This scenario is not possible, a €4 ticket is only for the Main draw, there is no way to have a €4 ticket include the Extra draw, which the €500K was won on. So if the cashier did not make the mistake the €500K would not have been won.

Actually, check www.lotto.ie - it is possible to play the Euromillions main draw togeher with the extra plus draw for €4 (depends on the number of panels played). Plus costs €1. Below is an excerpt from Lotto's website regarding the cost of playing Euromillions:

Full details are here http://www.lottery.ie/Global/Games/Game%20rule%20booklets/EUROMILLIONSRULES4.02.09.pdf

___________________________________

 An Post National Lottery Company 2011
"(1) Cost of a Play
(a) A Player must play a minimum of one Play Panel at a total cost of €1.00
(one Euro).
(b) The cost of each additional Play shall be €1.00 (one Euro).
(c) The cost of an Advance Play Ticket will be the cost of the Panels selected
multiplied by the number of Plus Drawings the Player has chosen"

carpediem

234 wrote: »

I think that just solved all the hand wringing on this thread. It's always the simple solutions that are the best!

Hand wringing? Merely wanted to discuss what would have happened if the Tesco cashier had not made a mistake by printing the wrong Lotto ticket?

NinjaTruncs

carpediem wrote: »

Actually, check www.lotto.ie - it is possible to play the Euromillions main draw togeher with the extra plus draw for €4 (depends on the number of panels played). Plus costs €1. Below is an excerpt from Lotto's website regarding the cost of playing Euromillions:

Full details are here http://www.lottery.ie/Global/Games/Game%20rule%20booklets/EUROMILLIONSRULES4.02.09.pdf

___________________________________

 An Post National Lottery Company 2011
"(1) Cost of a Play
(a) A Player must play a minimum of one Play Panel at a total cost of €1.00
(one Euro).
(b) The cost of each additional Play shall be €1.00 (one Euro).
(c) The cost of an Advance Play Ticket will be the cost of the Panels selected
multiplied by the number of Plus Drawings the Player has chosen"

I've no Idea where you are getting the €1.00 from as the rules in the link you provided state €2.00 in section 6.1.

Either way a line of Euromillions costs €2.00, the Plus is another Euro, making on line of EuroMillions with the Plus €3. There's no way to make a €4 EuroMillions quick pick with the Plus. You cannot do the Plus draw without doing the Main draw also.

This fact only cuts out the Customers claim, it still leaves the questions, will the Cashier be entitled to the Ticket, or will it be Tesco.

source

Can I ask where are ye getting Euromillions from? it doesn't say it anywhere in the article. This could well have been the regular lotto.

NinjaTruncs

The Irish lotto doesn't award a prize of 500K. the euromillions plus is the only game to award 500K.

MagicSean

carpediem wrote: »

Actually, check www.lotto.ie - it is possible to play the Euromillions main draw togeher with the extra plus draw for €4 (depends on the number of panels played). Plus costs €1. Below is an excerpt from Lotto's website regarding the cost of playing Euromillions:

Full details are here http://www.lottery.ie/Global/Games/Game%20rule%20booklets/EUROMILLIONSRULES4.02.09.pdf

___________________________________

 An Post National Lottery Company 2011
"(1) Cost of a Play
(a) A Player must play a minimum of one Play Panel at a total cost of €1.00
(one Euro).
(b) The cost of each additional Play shall be €1.00 (one Euro).
(c) The cost of an Advance Play Ticket will be the cost of the Panels selected
multiplied by the number of Plus Drawings the Player has chosen"

I don't know where you are getting this. In the rules link you posted under section 6 it says minimum play is €2

EDIT: Oops, beaten to it.

Fey!

Were the winning numbers on either of the first two lines on the ticket, or on the last 3?

If it was on the first 2, then the customer MAY have a grievance, although the same numbers may not have come up.

If the winning line was a subsequent line, then the customer can have no grievance, as those numbers would not have appeared on a €4 ticket. However, the next customer to buy a ticket from that machine could then chance their arm!!!

As for the cashier, if Tesco policy in the past has been that cashiers must pay for mistaken unsold tickets, then a precedent exists and the cashier is a winner. If such a policy didn't previously exist, then tough luck to the cashier.

That's how I see it, anyway!!

donegal11

Fey! wrote: »

Were the winning numbers on either of the first two lines on the ticket, or on the last 3?

If it was on the first 2, then the customer MAY have a grievance.

As pointed out earlier in the thread if the customer had got the same numbers on the 4 euro ticket it wouldn't have been entered into the plus draw and therefore couldn't have won, the customer can have no grievance.

cup of tea

Case is great advertising for the lotto IMO....further strengthens their slogan...."it could be you". Could the court draw an intention from the cashier to possess by drawing her unique smiley face on it?. Would she have sold a lotto ticket to a customer with a ''sad face'' on it?. Was sticking it to her till instead of putting it in the till again an act to show that she had the intention to possession?.
Obviously hard to base a reasonable case for either party seeing as we are missing a number of facts such as operating procedure(implied or in contract), there could have been a legitimate expectation from all cashiers that they would own possession to all unsold tickets in return for consideration(money paid into their till float the next day).
There could not be a case of where all unsold winning tickets cannot be claimed by staff wheras all unsold losing tickets have to be paid for. Also finally, has there been similar cases in the past in this tesco store?...i don't mean 500,000e but has there been for example winning tickets to claim a scratch card and where these small winning tickets allowed to be claimed by staff??.

carpediem

foinse wrote: »

Can I ask where are ye getting Euromillions from? it doesn't say it anywhere in the article. This could well have been the regular lotto.

Hi Foinse, it was indeed the Euromillions -->

http://http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lotto-woe-as-punter-spurns-euro500000-win-2611201.html

carpediem

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

I've no Idea where you are getting the €1.00 from as the rules in the link you provided state €2.00 in section 6.1.

Either way a line of Euromillions costs €2.00, the Plus is another Euro, making on line of EuroMillions with the Plus €3. There's no way to make a €4 EuroMillions quick pick with the Plus. You cannot do the Plus draw without doing the Main draw also.

This fact only cuts out the Customers claim, it still leaves the questions, will the Cashier be entitled to the Ticket, or will it be Tesco.

Hi Ninja Truncs, See page 7of the attached PDF. Refer to Section 6 (Method of Play) (1) Cost of play http://http://www.lotto.ie/Documents/Game%20Rules/'PLUS'%20EUROMILLIONS%20RULES%20ISSUE%202.2008.pdf

Edit: Looks like the Lotto have an old pricing doc (from 2008) still on their site -didn't help when trying to put the picture together. Upon furher research on their site, the actual current cost of Euromillions is €2 per play and €1 extra for the Plus. So, yes, you are correct, if the Customer purchased a €4 ticket, then one can only assume he/she purchased 2 regular plays and did not choose to purchase the Plus. Would really like to see the facts on how the mistake was made by the cashier - how did a €4 ticket without Plus become a €9 with Plus????!

carpediem

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

The Irish lotto doesn't award a prize of 500K. the euromillions plus is the only game to award 500K.

That's correct NinjaTruncs. In this case, the customer played the Euromillions lotto.