wagering agreement

Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares agreements by way of wager void, and no suit lies to recover anything won on a wager or entrusted to anyone to abide by its result. A wager has these features: mutual chances of gain or loss on an uncertain event; neither party controls the event; and neither has any interest in the event other than the stake. A contract of insurance is not a wager because the insured has an insurable interest.

The section exempts subscriptions or contributions for any prize of Rs. 500 or more to the winner of a horse race. A wager is void, not illegal, except where a statute (such as Maharashtra's) makes it illegal, so a collateral transaction such as a loan to pay a wagering debt is generally enforceable. That was held in Gherulal Parakh, which also held that wagering agreements are not opposed to public policy under s.23.

Example

The bet of Rs. 10,000 on the outcome of a cricket match was a wagering agreement, void under s.30, so the winner could not sue for it.

In Indian law

• Section 30, Indian Contract Act, 1872
• Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, 1959 INSC 24
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (English Court of Appeal, 1893): not a wager

See also

void agreement · insurable interest · contingent contract · res extra commercium

Read more in the study notes

• Abetment (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Abetment of suicide, organised crime and terrorist act (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Offences against the State (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Agreement and contract: meaning, essentials and kinds (Contract I)
• Unlawful consideration and object; e-contracts (Contract I)
• Void agreements and legality of object (Contract I)