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 that 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, which is responsible for his loss of a significant amount of money. You will either be allocated to a 'for' team or an 'against' team. 'Against' team: As a group, provide arguments for Mario losing the case, identifying the following: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion How could royal casino appeal the case? Where would the appeal case be heard? Would a jury be present? We have to present it so it have to be in details. It's business law VBE1006- Victoria uni