Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Incapacity and contract time limits.

Options
  • 18-02-2019 1:02pm
    #1
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭


    This is a pure theoretical arising from a debate on the issue.

    Lucky Larry buys a lottery ticket. He signs it and puts in his wallet. On leaving the shop he is knocked down by an entirely negligent motorist. Larry is rendered unconscious and is in a coma for 14 weeks (98 days).

    On waking up Larry checks his ticket to discover that it won a prize of €0.5 million. However, Larry is told that the 90 day period within which to claim has expired.

    As a matter of law has Larry any form of equitable relief from the 90 day rule (which he accepted on buying the ticket) on account of the fact that he was under a total disability for 98 days ?

    Would the negligent motorist's liability to Larry extend to cover this loss if he [Larry] gets no satisfaction on the equitable relief argument ?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Hmm Interesting question.

    In the first he has a period of time to claim the winnings. It is not met. The reasons are irrelevant. I dont think there is any come back there.

    In the second the motorist is liable for his loss of earnings as a consequence of the accident.

    If that loss of earnings could extend to cover lottery winnings I really dont know. You could raise it as an argument.

    I dont think the motorists insurance would extend to cover it. Thats based on experience of reading those sorts of motor insurance documents.

    Therefore the motorist would have to pay it and I doubt he's got .5 million around.

    The answer is in case law somewhere but I'm not going researching that.


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    For all the policy knows, the insured could run over a Premiership footballer on €1.8 million per year. Policies tend to have limits of around €10 million.


  • Options
    #4
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Victor wrote: »
    For all the policy knows, the insured could run over a Premiership footballer on €1.8 million per year. Policies tend to have limits of around €10 million.

    That is different and is salary.

    Don't foget that enforcement of contracts based on gambling are not lawful and as such it would be difficult to sue for loss of one off gambling earnings you may have been entitled to.


  • Options
    #5
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    That is different and is salary.
    Perhaps 50% of soccer earnings is down to goal scoring and game winning - is that salary or winnings?


  • Options
    #6
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Victor wrote: »
    Perhaps 50% of soccer earnings is down to goal scoring and game winning - is that salary or winnings?

    Salary.

    Its in the contract of employment.

    A performance bonus is not akin to a contract based on gambling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,003 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Here's a factor that may work in Larry's benefit. National Lottery have been known to pay winnings on scratch cards where their game in question has expired; ie the completion under which the scratch card was issued has finished. Were Larry to investigate this avenue he could find that there is precedence in paying up after the 90 days has lapsed.

    Also, is the 90 day rule a T&C of the draw or a legal requirement under Law? If the latter then his case is weaker.


  • Options
    #8
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Lottery winnings aren't "earnings". And I would have thought that winning lottery ticket lying undetected in Larry's clothes for 14 weeks is such an unlikely scenario that the loss of the prize wasn't a reasonably forseeable consequence of the motorist's negligence, and so wouldn't be recoverable.

    (In the real world, were this situation to occur, I think the Lottery would pay out. It's no skin off their nose; if they don't pay it out it goes back into the prize pool and is paid to otehr winners, and the positive publicity from paying out would be beneficial.)


  • Options
    #9
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    the positive publicity from paying out would be beneficial.
    .. or the start of a horrible precedent.


  • Options
    #10
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Victor wrote: »
    .. or the start of a horrible precedent.
    I don't think so; the circumstances of the payout are unlikely to recur.


Advertisement