case study:

Mario Mixwell was a gambler who frequently visited gambling venues. He had been previously imprisoned for fraud and armed robbery. A psychologist's report stated that he was a 'problem gambler'. Upon being aware of this report and due to his prior convictions, Royal Casino, a casino which Mario frequently attended, excluded him from entering its premises.

In an effort to address his gambling problem, he enrolled in a gamblers recovery program, where he made significant progress according to resident doctors. The report put forward by doctors claimed that he was still interested in gambling but certainly not pathologically.

Royal Casino, at this stage, had no reason to believe that he still had a gambling problem. It then formally allowed him to return to the casino premises. By this stage, Mario was a successful businessman and a high roller in many casinos throughout the country. In the space of 18 months he lost $2 billion at Royal Casino.

Mario is claiming that Royal casino was trying to exploit him and his addiction and it is responsible for his loss of a significant amount of money.

question :

Provide arguments for Mario to win the case, identifying the following:

The court in which this case would be heard?

The number of judges at the trial?

Whether a jury would be present?

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion?