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 where the contract was not purely collateral or incidental to the gaming contract.
Judges:
Aitchison
Citations:
1938 SC 207
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.
Contract
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.181868