Hi Jim ---- I'm not exactly ignoring the concept of bailment; just having trouble getting my mind around the idea that you can "bail" something by paying more than it's worth. While my research has been somewhat cursory on the subject, I cannot find a single statutory provision or case decision in California in which a "bailment" was found where the consideration paid by the bailee exceeded the value of the bailed item.

Also, my experience in gaming is rather limited -- as mentioned elsewhere, I do not play roulette at all; I have played either blackjack or poker at most of the casinos in the Reno, Tahoe and Carson City areas, as well as many in Las Vegas and a few in other Nevada locations; and I have played poker in several Bay Area California card rooms. Nevertheless, I have yet to hear how much in chips I wanted to "bail" upon entering the game; uniformly, the purchase of chips is referred to as the "buy in". Presumably you or someone else can advise whether the terminology is the same in roulette, or whether players are asked how much they want to "bail in" for. <g>

>One does not have to post a sign to protect ones property from "stealing".< Couldn't agree more with that; my point, however, was that posting such a sign would clarify what is clearly a point of some uncertainty (at least in the minds of some collectors and probably casual players, as well).

>It is common law that title does not pass unless the buyer and seller wishes (sic) so.< Right again; however, the intent to pass title can be either express or implied in the transaction. It seems clear to me that title passes by implication with respect to blackjack chips (generally, there is no express discussion of the subject, though sometimes players ask and are told it is OK to keep the chips). Under those circumstances, it also seems reasonable that the casino which permits the retention by players of blackjack chips in this way has by implication consented to the passing of title to any chips, unless there is some express provision to the contrary (e.g., a sign).

>I find it interesting that you called the enforcement divisions to get support involving legal concepts that are generally accepted throughout the business world.< For starters, I didn't call the enforement divisions. I called the Nevada Gaming Commission and upon stating my purpose in calling, was referred to the enforcement division. In New Jersey, I was referred to the Public Information Office, as previously stated. Second, I did not call to "get support" for anything; I was seeking information from what I thought would be a knowledgeable source on a subject of controversy. Third, I don't think the status of roulette chips constitutes a legal concept "generally accepted throughout the business world". If it was, we wouldn't be having this (LONG) discussion on this BB.

As for the Uniform Commercial Code, it is an advisory code which has no legal status until adopted by a particular state in some form. In California, the legislature has seen to adopt it only in part and, since the initial adoption, to amend it substantially (here, it is called the California Commercial Code). Generally speaking, the UCC applies to commercial transactions (that is, transactions between business entities) rather than retail or consumer transactions (not exclusively the case, but generally). I do not believe that the delivery of casino chips of any kind from the casino to the player would be subject to the provisions of the UCC.

Apparently, I failed to make clear my point regarding the value of the roulette chips. I did not mean to imply that I think they have no value; clearly they do (either the original cost or replacement value, at least). The real point is that if the player has paid more to obtain possession of the chip than it is worth, it is difficult for me to characterize permanent retention of the chip as a theft. I venture to say without fear of meaningful contradiction that any business which could lease property for more than it cost would love to have the lessees retain the property permanently, after which they would simply replace the property (using part of the lease cost) and retain the excess as profit. I think that's generally called a sale!

You misunderstood my point about theft being (technically speaking) a crime against possession. So, now I'll explain the esoteric point. It is a theft to take property from another with intent to permanently deprive, even if the person from whom the property is taken is not the owner. Hence, crime against possession, not ownership. Certainly if the person in possession is also the owner, taking the property from the owner, with the requisite intent, is a theft. However, if I loan you my car and someone else steals it while in your possession, the theft is from YOU, not ME (that is both common law and California statutory law; I suspect the same in most places).

> I really take issue with you involving what you consider to be "stealing". The issue isn't how much is it worth, or how large or small the item stolen is - the issue is: is it stealing? Not whether YOU would prosecute.< Of course, the issue is: is it stealing? That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't think it's all that black and white, at least not in all circumstances. I concede that whether I would prosecute or not is NOT precisely to the point; however, the prosecuting authority will ultimately determine what is or is not a theft. I was stating my opinion merely as an example of how one former prosecutor viewed the circustances (and therefore, how I think current prosecutors might decide as well).

It was my intention to provide some information which (I hope) will provide some basis upon which people could make an informed decision about whether to take the chance of removing roulette chips without specific permission from the casino. Read my previous post again and you will see that I also stated that there are circumstances in which I believe such removal would be theft (as well as others in which I am uncertain what I think). I also made the point that I am not particularly familiar with Nevada or New Jersey law for the reason that anyone who feels the need for specific advice on the subject should get it from someone who IS particularly familiar with the law of the state in which they will visit the casino. If I confused anyone, I apologize; I hope that wasn't the case.

Sorry this is so long, folks. ----- jim o\-S