Wagering Agreements Void

Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 is influenced by the English Gaming Act 1845. Heavily influenced by English decisions, the judges took up the essential features of the gambling law. However, there is a large difference between English and Indian betting laws: under the English Gaming Act of 1845, the agreements related to the betting contract are also cancelled,38 whereas in India the guarantee agreements are not necessarily non-astreigs, except in Bombay,[xix], because the purpose of such a guarantee contract does not necessarily have to be illegal. In addition, the Apex court stated that „action on a bet may be upheld by law if it is not contrary to the interest or feelings of a third party, does not result in indecent evidence and is not contrary to public policy.” [xx] ILLUSTRATION – A and B are two F1 drivers. Ram Said, he`ll pay Shayam $1, 000 if A wins and Shyam said he`d pay Ram $1, 000 if A loses. It`s a betting deal between Ram and Shyam. The term „punters” was not defined in the Indian Contracts Act. However, there is a classic definition in the case of Carlill v carbolic smoke ball co. (1891-94 All ER Rep 127). „A betting contract is a contract in which two persons who agree to defend the question of an uncertain future event agree with each other that, depending on the determination of this event to be won or thus lost, there is no other consideration for contracting by one of the parties. If one of the parties can win, but can not lose, but can lose, but can not win, it is not a betting contract. In addition, according to the law, prize competitions with skill games are not bets. But if the amount of the prize exceeds a certain amount, they are considered games of chance and not before. A betting agreement depends on the uncertain event.

The parties to the agreement have uncertainty in mind as to the determination of the event in one way or another. A bet may be based on a future event or even relate to a past event, and the parties are not aware of the outcome of their event. An insurance contract is a compensation contract that protects the interests of a party from damages and also has an insurable interest. On the other hand, a betting contract is a conditional contract and has no interest in an event taking place or taking place. Unlike insurance contracts, betting contracts are void and the purpose of a betting contract is to speculate on money or money, whereas the purpose of an insurance contract is to protect interest. The various nations of the common law have passed gambling laws on the basis of the United Kingdom Gaming Act 1845. Laws across Australia are based on page 18 of the Gaming Act, which states that betting and gambling contracts are null and void. The gambling and wagering laws of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand are also based on the UK Gaming Act.

Illustrations 1 – A and B conclude an agreement in which A has promised to pay B a sum of 20,000 times if India wins the world championship. This agreement is null and void because it depends on an uncertain event and both parties have opposing views on the event. If India wins, B wins the bet and A pays the agreed amount. Thus, one party will lose and the other will win. Section 6 of the Marine Insurance Act of 1963 provides that all marine insurance contracts are cancelled by bet; and that a marine insurance contract is considered a betting contract if the insured has no insurable interest.

Komentowanie jest wyłączone.