- 14 -
and the payments that had been made and that petitioner agreed
with them. The contact record entry is evidence standing in
direct contrast to petitioner's claim that he disputed the amount
he owed the casino.
It seems likely that, if petitioner did not believe that he
owed the full amount Caesar’s claimed, he would have told one or
more of the account representatives who contacted him and that
his claim, which involved an allegation of serious wrongdoing by
a casino employee, would have been noted on the IOU envelope
during the more than 2-1/2 years that Caesar’s attempted to
collect the debt. Petitioner claims that, because the casino
accepted his word on the matter, he made no effort to prove his
claim concerning the repayments from the tournament gamblers by,
for instance, obtaining statements from them or showing the
casino the receipts they apparently received from the casino cage
when chips were cashed. However, in the records of Caesar’s that
are in evidence, there is no indication of any such acceptance.
Petitioner claims that neither he nor the casino wanted to put
anything concerning the dispute in writing prior to the making of
settlement offers, but petitioner offers no plausible explanation
for such a desire.
Moreover, it seems to us that petitioner readily could have
resolved any dispute by presenting the casino with evidence of
payment, such as the receipts apparently received by the
tournament gamblers, rather than conducting a “running telephone
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011