WAGERING AGREEMENT

1

WAGERING AGREEMENT

2

WAGERING AGREEMENT 3 .

taking Wagering Agreement in The Contract Act as our topic. in the CPT examination.  Accordingly.  Hence.Coming across Wagering Agreements and Contracts while studying The Indian Contract Act. we started taking interest in the topic and now we present it. we begun our research.  WAGERING AGREEMENT 4 . we wanted to study it in detail. 1872.

 We are going to throw light upon what is wagering agreement and its related essentials. exceptions along with cases. effects. 1872. Our topic is WAGERING AGREEMENTS IN THE CONTRACT ACT. WAGERING AGREEMENT 5 . which will be discussed.  This agreement has been also misunderstood as a contingent agreement or insurance contract.

(Sec 10 & 11) Agreements with unlawful consideration or object. (SECTION 30) Agreement to do impossible acts.by persons who are not competent to contract. (Sec 29) WAGERING AGREEMENTS. (Sec 23) Agreements the meaning of which is uncertain. (Sec 56) Agreements WAGERING AGREEMENT 6 .

WAGERING AGREEMENT 7 . There must be mutual chances of gain or loss. Whether an agreement is a wager or not depends on the activity and not on the words of the agreement.It must be dependent upon uncertain event.

¡ ¡ ¡ The parties must not have any other interest in the event. WAGERING AGREEMENT 8 . The promise must be to pay money or money·s worth. The parties must not have any control over the event.

is also void.The winner cannot recover the money deposited with a third person (stakeholder). cannot be recovered back from him. WAGERING AGREEMENT 9 .A new promise to pay the stake money (already won) upon a wager.Š Effects Of Main Transactions: . .Where the money has already been paid to the winner. .The winner in wager cannot recover the stake money from the other party to the agreement. .

500 to B. Yet A is liable to repay the amount to C. . A loosing the bet. borrowed Rs. except in Gujarat and Old Bombay. 500 from C. thus not being void. paid Rs.Thus these transactions are valid and enforceable. the transactions to the main transactions are not void.Therefore. WAGERING AGREEMENT 10 . as the contract is a collateral to the wagering agreement.Š Effects On Collateral Transaction: . laying a bet with B on a car in a race. .Eg: A. .Wagering agreements are void but not unlawful.

.The outcome of the wager is evident within a short period. of which about half is illegally bet and black money.Š GAMBLING : something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.Gambling in India is heavily restricted. WAGERING AGREEMENT 11 . . . although there is extensive illegal gambling throughout the country.Gambling is the wagering of money or .The Indian gambling market is estimated to be worth US$60 billion per year.

race fixing. Where the sporting competition in question is a race then the incident is referred to as race fixing. is up winning against Pakistan by an inning and 225 runs. violating the rules of the game and often the law. or sports fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result. that the team was subject to match fixing causing a halt of the game and controversy to who is responsible and who is not.) WAGERING AGREEMENT 12 Š Š . making this Pakistan's worst loss in Cricket in 58 years. match fixing. however. game fixing.Š In organized sports. EXAMPLE :(August 2010 Cricket: England v/s Pakistan. It is discovered.England by the 4th day of their test match.

and therefore.Gherulal Parekh vs. the transactions collateral to the main transaction are enforceable. 30 of the Indian Contract Act. Mahadeo Das(1959)The question for determination in this appeal was whether an agreement of partnership with the object of entering into wagering transactions was illegal within the meaning of s. under section 30. Hence. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court. WAGERING AGREEMENT 13 . in Gherulal Parekh vs. it is not forbidden by law. of the Contract Act. Mahadeo Das that though a wager is void and unenforceable. a wagering agreement is not unlawful.

WAGERING AGREEMENT 14 .

GAMES OF SKILLS HORSE RACES TRANSACTIONS OF SALE INSURANCE CONTRACTS WAGERING AGREEMENT 15 .

Š GAMES OF SKILLS: -Prize competitions which are games of skill. an agreement to enter into a wrestling contest in which the winner was to be rewarded by the entire sale proceeds of tickets. athletic competitions. WAGERING AGREEMENT 16 .. -A crossword competition is not a wager since it involves skill. e. was held not to be wagering contract. Thus. 1000.g. -Prize competitions in games of skill are not wagers provided the prize money does not exceed Rs. picture puzzles.

Š HORSE RACES: -An agreement to contribute or subscribe towards any plate. prize or sum of money. -However. any transaction connected with horse racing which is declared illegal WAGERING AGREEMENT 17 . of the value or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards to be awarded to the winners of any horse-race is valid agreement and not a wager.

or for the sale and delivery of goods. the transaction is a wager and hence void. as the case may be. WAGERING AGREEMENT 18 . -Where the intention is only to settle in price difference.Š TRANSACTIONS OF SALE: -Transactions for the sale and purchase of stocks and shares. with a clear intention to give and take delivery of shares or goods.

-There is an insurable interest in an insurance contract while there is no such interest in a wagering contract. WAGERING AGREEMENT 19 .Š INSURANCE CONTRACT: -An insurance contract which is essentially a contract of speculation is not a wagering contract.

 That is why an insurance contract is different from a wagering agreement. the parties who enter in to the wagering agreements must play on their own risk and cannot rely on court of law for any relief.   Therefore. any of the party does not have and insurable interest in the subject matter of the agreement except resulting gain or loss. WAGERING AGREEMENT 20 . This is the main distinguishing feature of a valid contingent contract when comparing to a wagering contract. In a wagering agreement.

it is very clear that the wagering agreements are void and cannot be enforceable before the law.1000.But no suit can be brought by any of the winner or loser for the purpose of recovering the sum due to the winner from Y.1000 with a third party ´Yµ advising him to pay the total sum for the winner.Thus. However. . . WAGERING AGREEMENT 21 . For an example. .A and B enter in to wagering agreement and each deposits Rs. it is impossible for a loser to bring an action against the winner for recovering his Rs.

The future event is merely collateral or incidental. In a contingent agreement. 2) All wager agreements are contingent contracts. 3) In a wager. All contingent agreements are not necessarily wager agreements. The uncertain event may be within the power of one of the parties. the uncertain event is beyond the power of both the parties. apart from AGREEMENT 5) The future event is the sole determining factor of the contract. 1) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The agreement need not contain any mutual promises. event. 4) The parties are notCONTINGENT interested in the occurrence of the WAGERING AGREEMENT the money earned or lost.The agreements is bound by mutual or reciprocal promises. the parties are interested in the occurrence of the event. WAGERING AGREEMENT 22 . 6) Wagers are void. Contingent agreement is not void unless it is dependent on the occurrence of an impossible event.

2) Though agreements collateral to a wager are valid and enforceable by law. WAGERING 6) Wagering agreement sAGREEMENT are totally different from 23 . 5) The parties must not have any control over the event. 3) The promise is dependent on an uncertain event.Thus we conclude that 1) Wagering Agreements are Void. 4) The promise must be to pay in money or money¶s worth.

britanica.apexwagering.google.Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š www.com www.com www.ask.ladbrokes.com www.com World Book Britanica Encyclopedia Encarta WAGERING AGREEMENT 24 .com www.

WAGERING AGREEMENT 25 .