This chapter’s opening vignette about the suit in California over Soheil Sadri’s Nevada casino gambling debts can generate many questions, some not directly related to the legality issue, that nevertheless deserve answers so students can put the case in its proper context.

Questions:

1. Why did the casino sue in California?

2. Why was the credit collection agency the plaintiff?

3. What does that mean?

4. Why was the lawsuit in California?

5. Could it have sued Sadri in Nevada?

6. Would the outcome have been different if Sadri was sued in Nevada?

7. Then why the different result in this case?

8. Why are illegal contracts unenforceable?

9. Isn’t it unfair to allow someone to gamble on credit and then refuse to pay the debt by hiding behind this legal doctrine? Why should a casino suffer the loss?