“One by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent on the determination of that event, one shall win from the…
Question and options
“One by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent on the determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the parties having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties. If either of the parties may win but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering contract.” This definition of a wagering contract was adopted by the Supreme Court of India in
- Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, AIR 1959 SC 781
- Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
- Williams v. Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44
- Brogden v. Metropolitan Rly Co (1877) LR 2 App Cas 666
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A - Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, AIR 1959 SC 781
The definition was given by Hawkins J in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892, first instance) and was adopted by the Supreme Court of India in Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (1959). Balfour v Balfour (domestic agreements), Williams v Carwardine (knowledge of offer) and Brogden (acceptance by conduct) are unrelated.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CUSAT CAT LLM
-
CLAT PG
Subject revision for a passage-based exam
-
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Supreme Court Law Clerk and Research Associate
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision
-
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
Subject revision
Related question papers
Related exam syllabi
More solved explanations in Lawful object & void agreements
- According to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects is unlawful, then:
- Where no separate statute prohibits the transaction, how does Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act treat an ordinary wagering agreement?
- A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery and B promises to restore the value of things taken. The agreement is
- Which agreement is void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on the facts given?
- An illegal object makes an agreement: