An agreement to settle the difference between the contract price and the market price of certain goods on a given date was held several times as a bet. Betting agreements are speculative in nature, but speculation does not have to be a gamble. Some commercial transactions take the form of a betting agreement when the parties enter into a formal agreement to sell and purchase goods at a certain price and for their delivery at a given time, it may be that an effective transfer of the parties is intentional, is a valid contact, on the other hand, if it never intends to pay a real transfer of goods at all, but they only planned to pay or get the difference depending on whether the market price should differ from the contract price, then or will be a commercial transaction, but it will be a bet on the rise or fall of the market that will fall into the connotation of the game will therefore not be elusive. Therefore, in determining whether an agreement is a bet or a speculative transaction, the test is the intention of the parties to the agreement at the time of the contract. …»Gaming» and «Paris» that it is not defined anywhere. The event of an uncertain event may be one of the tests: see Sassoon v. Tokersey (4).5. In an agreement, when there are different classes… to receive the entire proceeds from ticket sales.
It has been argued that this agreement was a betting agreement. The term «bets that.. «year/e» is not defined in the Contracts Act; But the… The losers do not win the prize, but have lost nothing of themselves.9. In these circumstances, I agree that the agreement cannot in any way be considered one of the legal bets… In the case of Narayana Ayyangar v. Vallachami Ambalam, the Chit Fund cannot be a betting agreement, in this case was detained. As in the Chit-Fonds, there is a chance of rain, but there is no chance of losing, since the actual amount of the subscription is refunded. There is therefore no loss and the mutual chance of losing or winning is absent.
Therefore, chit Fund is not a betting agreement. 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.