From a recent legal decision

MR JUSTICE BRIGGS decision on the action between GRAHAM CALVERT (Claimant) and WILLIAM HILL CREDIT LIMITED (Defendant)

quote:

The self-exclusion procedure forms a main plank in the social responsibility structure which stands as the quid per quo for the modern policy of the encouragement of gambling as an industry and as a leisure activity. The question whether the limited effectiveness of self-exclusion as a remedy for problem gambling undermines the integrity of that public policy bargain is something for the Gambling Commission and Parliament rather than the courts to decide.

Any comments on this use of "quid per quo"? A simple error or did the judge have some more devious meaning in mind?

quid per quo

Looks like an error. The Latin preposition per governs the accusative case, which in this case would be per quid.

Paraphrasing ..... (what the Judge seems to be saying ... to me ):

1. Modern policy encourages gambling as an industry and as a leisure activity.

2. The procedure for withdrawing oneself from the gambling is essential to the socially responsible structural basis of that modern policy.

3. Does a person's withdrawal from gambling remedy his problem gambling?

Don't ask, don't tell !!

Asking this question might undermine public policy bargain's integrity.

Whether or not it does undermine that integrity is something we must let the Gambling Commission and the courts decide."

Whew !! Quid per quid !!

Seems like an error to me.