Wagering agreement | Tony borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- from John in order to bet with Mahesh as to the result of a cricket match. Tony lost the bet to Mahesh… Mahesh and John initiated legal remedies against Tony separately for recovery of Rs. 5000/-. Decide.

Question: Wagering agreement | Tony borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- from John in order to bet with Mahesh as to the result of a cricket match. Betting on a cricket match is not authorized by law. Tony lost the bet to Mahesh. Tony neither paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to Mahesh nor returned Rs. 5000/- to John. Mahesh and John initiated legal remedies against Tony separately for recovery of Rs. 5000/-. Decide. [DJS 2005]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Wagering agreement | Tony borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- from John in order to bet with Mahesh as to the result of a cricket match. Tony lost the bet to Mahesh… Mahesh and John initiated legal remedies against Tony separately for recovery of Rs. 5000/-. Decide.]

Answer

Section 30 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 makes agreements by way of wager, void. This section lays down the provision that: “Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made.”

Sir William Anson’s definition of “wager” as a promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event brings out the concept of wager declared void by Section 30 of The Contract Act,1872.”

A wagering agreement being void cannot be enforced in any court of law. Thus the amount won on a wager cannot be recovered. Moreover, a subsequent substituted agreement of the same consideration, namely, the amount won on a wager is also not enforceable as held in Hill v. William Hills (Park Lane) Ltd, [1949 AC 530 (HL)]. In other words, a new promise to pay money won upon a wager is equally void. Similarly, money deposited with a person to enable him to pay to the party winning upon a wager cannot be recovered.

The winner cannot recover the money, but before it is paid to him the deposit or may recover from the stakeholder. But where the money has already been paid over, it cannot be recovered back.

Therefore, both Mahesh and John are not competent in eyes of law to initiate legal remedies against Tony separately because the object for which the money was lent and agreement was entered into is purely wager. Hence both doesn’t have any legal right to get compensated from Tony, as the nature of the agreement is wager which makes it void by virtue of Section 30 of the act.

---

Law of Contract Mains Questions Series: Important Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-X