Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 Act directly states that the betting agreements are void and that the parties to the agreement cannot appeal for the recovery of an arbitration award in respect of the agreement. But the thing is, pari agreement is not illegal, but they are not valid, which means they can be done but are not enforceable in court. The law on gambling, betting and gambling contracts can be developed in three stages; The bet is based on chance. That is why it is necessary for both sides to have an equal chance of winning and for both sides to have the opportunity to win or lose. Agreements that fix results on a party do not bet an agreement. There must be two results of the event and a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is entirely based on skill, there is no bet. One of the main elements of a betting agreement is that it must depend on an uncertain event. The event may be past, present or future, but the parties do not have to realize their future, the timing of their results or when they occur. A cricket match is to start in Hyderabad, between India and South Africa. If India wins the match, A agrees to pay 500 B Rs, while if South Africa wins the match, B agrees to pay 500 ru. A.
It`s a betting deal. In that case. Each game has a chance to win or lose. Here, the gain of one part will be the loss of the other and vice versa. Not only horse racing, but all other skilled sports and games must be maintained as an exception to betting agreements and, in order to do so, Section 30 of the Indian Contracts Act must be amended. During my childhood, my friends used to bet on small things especially on the IPL teams and the deal was usually that you had to promise others to give some chocolates if his team loses the game and the same thing was promised to the other party. The day after the result, the party that lost the bet refused to give the chocolates to the one who won, and they found themselves in a small fight. Whoever won the bet was my best friend and he asked me if the lost party should have given him the chocolates or not.
I said that whoever lost the bet is obliged to give you because it was a deal and you promised yourself and you promised to break your promises is a bad habit. Good boys don`t. But now I know that the logic I yielded was wrong and legally the lost party was not obliged to give, since the deal between them was betting in nature that is null and void according to the law. This incident has always been in mind and has been one of the subjects of the contracts that attracted me the most. Inspired by this true story, I thought I`d do a brief analysis on betting agreements. But the problem is not yet solved here. Our society has always regarded gambling as something immoral and contrary to public order, and those who oppose that sports betting should not be legalized justify that they encourage sports-related crimes such as match-fixing, but I would like to ask them that even if sports betting is not legalized. , they may annoy us that erroneous events like match fixing would not take place.