There was no dispute that a dog race had been won by a dog named Violet, and that Violet had been entered in the race by one of the parties. The issue was whether that party had entered Violet for his own benefit, having borrowed Violet for the purpose, and was therefore entitled to the prize; or whether he had entered Violet as the agent of Violet’s owner, who was therefore the person truly entitled to the prize.
Held: No question of sponsio ludicra. The issue as to which party was entitled to the prize depended on the nature of the contract between them, whether loan or agency, and since that was a question which was separate from the race itself, no question of sponsio ludicra was involved. It was a question not of racing or hunting, but of contract of mandate or loan. The whole sporting question is settled – the prize is awarded to Violet – and the question is, what individual has an interest by law and contract in what Violet has won?
Judges:
Lord Mackenzie, Lord Fullerton, Lord Jeffrey
Citations:
(1848) 10 D 646
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
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.
Scotland, Contract
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181866