In comparing the two lines of authority on the interpretation of "wagering", it is significant that none of the cases which define the term broadly as a contract of chance evidence any consideration of the established authorities in support of the narrower definition. I am satisfied that the better view of what constitutes wagering is that expressed in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball, and confirmed and applied repeatedly and consistently wherever courts have considered the matter on the authorities.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.