The court reviewed a decision on the enforceability of gaming contracts.
Held: Different considerations played a part in the development of the rules with different emphases in different cases. In some cases the ground of decision is that the parties cannot have intended that the transactions should have legal consequences. In others it was beneath the dignity of the court to enter into the question who won or lost a particular wager, and in others stress is put on the fact that such transactions do not have commercial significance, and it may be that, in some of those cases, a general disapproval of gaming or wagering can be detected.
Judges:
Lord Coulsfield
Citations:
1997 SLT 309
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Hope v Tweedie 1776
The court refused to find an enforceable contract where from the circumstances it was found that the parties cannot have intended that the transactions should have any legal consequences. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Robertson v Anderson IHCS 5-Dec-2002
The parties had agreed to share any winnings from their Bingo activities. One sought to reject the contract as an unenforceable gaming contract.
Held: The contention was rejected. It had been suggested that there had been no intention to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181875
