Wager, a contract by A. to pay money to B. on the happening of a given event, in consideration of B. paying money to him on the event not happening; and see the elaborate definition of 'wagering contract' in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1892) 2 QB 490, by Hawkins. J.
1. Money or other consideration risked on an uncertain event; a bet or gamble 2. A promise to pay money or other consideration on occurrence of an uncertain event, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1573.
At Common Law a wager was a legal contract, which the courts were bound to enforce, so long as it was not against morality, decency, or sound policy, Johnson v. Lumley, (1852) 12 CB 468. But by the (English) Gaming Act, 1845, s. 18:
All contracts or agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void; and no suit shall be brought or maintained in any court of law or equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made: Provided always, that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contri-bute, for or toward any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise.
In Read v. Anderson, (1884) 13 QBD 779, it was held by a majority of the Court of Appeal, that a turf commission-agent might recover the amount of lost bets paid by him, in defiance of a revocation of the authority to make them; but the correctness of this decision was much questioned, and the law has been since altered by the Gaming Act, 1892, by which any promise to pay any person any sum paid by him in respect of any contract made void by the Act of 1845, or any commission in respect of any such contract, is itself made void; and the effect of this Act is that money paid by A. for B. at the request of B. in discharge of bets lost by B. to other persons cannot be recovered by A. from B. [Tatam v. Reeve, (1893) 1 QB 44]. The consideration for a cheque given, or in repayment of a loan made for wagering is bad [Gaming Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 41)], even though the cheque was drawn in a country where wagering is legal, Moulis v. Owen, (1907) 1 KB 746; but money lent for such a purpose can be recovered in the courts of this country, Saxby v. Fulton, (1909) 2 KB 208, but see Carlton Hall Club v. Laurence, (1929) 2 KB 153. There may, however, be a new consideration, e.g., an agreement to hold the cheque back and not present it for a certain time; such new consideration will support an action. The deposit given to a stakeholder on a wagering contract may be recovered if not, or before it has been, paid over, Burge v. Ashley and Smith, (1900) 1 QB 744; Hyams v. Stuart King, (1908) 2 KB 696. See, generally, the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934 (24 & 25 Geo. 5, c. 58). Consult Coldbridge and Hawksford's or Shoolbred's Law of Gambling.
View Judgments Citing this Phrase View Acts Citing this Phrase