So 100 euro on a 3500/1 shot which pays out at maybe 1600/1 approx.
Second prize is two shop units and three apartments in Cashel
how can this fail, what a great idea!
queue sales of around about 500 tickets, the proceeds of which her solicitor must keep “on ice”
after about 18 months she will realise its a failure and will pay a few hundred euro in bank fees and transfer fees to give people their money back.
maybe a couple of grand in solicitors fees too for managing the whole sorry affair.
Search the pin for “raffle a house” and go to pages 6 & 7
They haven’t gone away you know.
I like this condition:
You really hate your language.
I like the way they have bits like this where they use capitalised terms like “Vendor” and “Owner” that they never define.
These people should be forced to raffle however many tickets they sell
Well, my reading of the Ts&Cs seems to indicate that they are bound to raffle after a set period of time no matter how many tickets they sell.
Hence the “or” in this sentence is significant, and probably not what she intended:
Am I missing something?
She did say though that if not enough tickets sold there could be a raffle just for the money raised.
billot: is that a written term of the contract or simply something she said/thinks?
Those terms are, to use the technical legal term, makey uppy bullshit. I particularly enjoyed this piece of nonsense:
“43. A sum will be donated to a charity of the promoters choice from the proceeds.”
@evilal - you’re not missing anything. The “Promoter” has succeeded in binding herself to raffle the property (within 9 days after 6 months from 30 April 2011) irrespective of whether all the tickets are sold. (Why the convoluted date? See the section headed “Winner” and clause 27.)
Can’t think of too many 4 bed semis in the area that would sell for 250k these days.
page 54 sorry.