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 create legally binding obligations. A promise given in purely social circumstances might not normally be found to be intended to create a legally binding contract, but it was necessary to look at the actual intentions of the parties, and such an intention might be inferred. It could be inferred here. As to gaming contracts, neither party was betting with the other. The contract related to gaming but was not itself a gaming contract.

Lord MacLean, Kord Reed, Lord Weir
Times 02-Jan-2003, [2002] ScotCS 312
ScotC, Bailii
CitedSimpkins v Pays 1955
The court found an intention to create legal relations and therefore an enforceable contract among the members of a family to share the winnings in a newspaper competition which the family regularly entered.
Sellers J said: ‘It may well be . .
CitedDawson International plc v Coats Patons plc 1993
When two parties talk about a matter which with commercial significance, a statement by one that he will do something will be construed as obligatory, or as an offer, rather than as a mere statement of intention, if the words and deeds of the other . .
CitedGraham v Pollock IHCS 1848
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 . .
CitedCumming v Mackie 1973
The general law of Scotland as to sponsio ludicra is that an action for the recovery of a gaming debt is not maintainable against the party in the gaming contract with whom the bet or wager is made, and it makes no difference to the application of . .
CitedRobertson v Balfour 1938
The rule against enforcing a gaming contract is so clear that the Court will not take cognizance of a supervening contract which is subsidiary to, and flows from, the original gaming contract. The court distinguished these contracts from, this case . .
CitedO’Connell v Russell 1864
An action will not be maintainable if it is, in substance, an action for recovery of money won by a wager on a horse race. . .
CitedLee v Lord Dalmeny ChD 1927
The Court will not enforce an agreement which is part of the gaming contract. . .
CitedKnight and Co v Stott 1892
The Court will hear an action which is connected with a gambling transaction if the connection is merely collateral or incidental. . .
CitedHopkins v Baird 1920
An action for recovery of money lent for gambling is maintainable, save only for the statutory prohibitions. . .
CitedFerguson v Littlewoods Pools Ltd 1997
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 . .
CitedClayton v Clayton 1937
It was alleged that the pursuers and the defender had clubbed together to buy a ticket in an Irish lottery. The ticket was bought in the name of the defender, and a sum of money was won. The action was brought to compel him to share the winnings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.178692