Bets were disputed, and particularly the status of a clause in the bookmaker’s book of rules which provided: ‘Should unfortunately any dispute arise we stipulate that the matter be referred within 30 days to the editor of any paper in which we advertise or another responsible arbitrator by mutual agreement.’
Held: ‘That the rules in this book, if accepted, expressly or by conduct, would constitute a contract or agreement by way of gaming or wagering would not be disputed, but it has been argued that the paragraph I have read is not included under the heading ‘Rules’, and ought to be treated as a separate agreement, and as one not tainted with the illegality attaching to rules regulating betting transactions. I cannot take that view. The paragraph is, in my opinion, an integral part of the terms upon which alone the plaintiffs were willing to do business with the persons to whom this book was sent . . I cannot separate that part of the document from the rules and treat the agreement to refer as one distinct and apart from the other contents of this book. There is only one contract and that a contract or agreement by way of gaming or wagering, a contract therefore which is void and cannot be made the foundation of any successful application in these Courts.’
Judges:
Eve J
Citations:
[1927] 1 Ch 300
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Soleimany v Soleimany CA 4-Mar-1998
The parties were Iranian Jews, father and son. The son arranged to export carpets from Iran in contravention of Iranian law. The father and son fell into dispute about their contracts and arranged for the issues to be resolved by the Beth Din . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219315
