A and B agree that if it rains on Tuesday, A 100 Rs. will pay to B and if it doesn`t rain on Tuesday, B 100 Rs. will pay. Such an agreement is a betting agreement and is therefore not concluded. The parties to a betting agreement agree on the nature of the agreement, which both parties will win. Each game is equal to win or lose the bet. The chance to win or the risk of loss is not one-sided. If one of the parties can win, but can not lose, or can lose, but can not win, it is a betting contract. In India, the betting agreements were explicitly cancelled. It cannot therefore be applied in any court. In section 30 of the act, it says 3.
In a betting agreement, neither party has an interest in an event taking place or not taking place. But in an insurance contract, both parties are interested in the object. State governments can allow the horse racing competition if local laws permit. In such cases, a subscription or contribution valued at or above Rs.500 for a prize or amount of money to be paid to the winner of a horse race is not illegal. In other words, agreements to subscribe to that price or a sum or to contribute to a contribution are also valid and applicable. 2. The betting agreement is a nullity agreement, while the insurance contract is a valid one. 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. However, the fact that the agreement is oral, but not written, does not affect it: verbal contracts are valid, although some contracts must be written under the Fraud Act, for example.