The term “bet that” was not defined in the Indian Contract Act. However, there is a classic definition in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[i]” A betting contract is a contract whereby two persons who profess to defend opposing views that touch on the issue of an uncertain future event agree that, according to the determination of that event, one wins from the other and the other is paid or remitted by the other. , a sum of money or other transaction; None of the parties who have an interest other than the amount or bet they will earn or lose have no other consideration for the drafting of such a contract by either party. If one of the parties can win, but can not lose, but can lose, but can not win, it is not a betting contract. The above definition excludes events that have occurred. Therefore, Sir William Anson`s definition of “giving a promise to give money or money for the determination and recognition of an uncertain event” is more precise and precise. [ii] This seems to reduce the essentials: “Reciprocal chances of profit and lossThe one or two parties must give each other a chance of profit and loss,[iii] that is, one party must win and the other loses in the determination of the event. It is not a bet where a party can win, but cannot lose, or if it can lose, but cannot win, or if it cannot win or lose, “if one of the parties has the event in hand, the transaction lacks an essential ingredient of the bet.” [iv] “The essence of the bet is that each party should win or lose, in accordance with the uncertain or unreased event in which the chance or risk is taken.” [v] “This section is not considered illegal for a subscription, contribution or agreement, a sign, a prize or a sum of money, the value or amount of five hundred rupees or up, to subscribe or sign or make a contribution to the winner of a horse race.” 3. In a betting agreement, neither party has an interest in an event occurring or not happening. But in an insurance contract, both parties are interested in the object.
A and B agree that if it rains on Tuesday, A 100 Rs. will pay to B and if it doesn`t rain on Tuesday, B 100 Rs. will pay. Such an agreement is a betting agreement and is therefore not concluded. Agreements as a bet are not considered; and no legal action is brought for debt collection or entrusted to a person to stick to the results of a game or other uncertain event on which a bet is made. 1. In a betting contract, there is no insurable interest, while the insurance contract has insurable interest The betting contract must contain a promise to pay money or value. A and B enter into an agreement that if A leaves his job, B 500 Rs. to A and A 500 Rs. to B, if he does not resign.
Here, A controls the event. Therefore, no bet. The Supreme Court held that where an agreement has the effect of providing a guarantee for another or assistance intended to facilitate the implementation of the purpose of the other convention, which is in itself non-prohibited within the meaning of S 23 of the Contracts Act, it may be imposed as a security agreement. On the other hand, if it is part of a mechanism to defeat what the law has effectively prohibited, the courts will not accept a claim based on the agreement, because it is tainted by an illegality of the purpose sought by S 23 of the Contracts Act. An agreement cannot be characterized as prohibited or illegal simply because it gives rise to a nullity contract. an unducded agreement, if it is related to other facts, may be part of a transaction that creates legal rights, but this is not the case if the object is prohibited or mala in it. In England, too, betting contract agreements were not invalidated until the Gambling Act was passed in 1892.