Site navigation

“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
  1. Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, AIR 1959 SC 781
  2. Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
  3. Williams v. Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44
  4. 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

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Lawful object & void agreements