Author Question: Gambling Contracts. No law prohibits citizens in a state that does not sponsor a state-operated ... (Read 84 times)

student77 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Gambling Contracts. No law prohibits citizens in a state that does not sponsor a state-operated lottery from purchasing lottery tickets in a state that does have such a lottery. Because Georgia did not have a state-operated lottery, Talley and several other Georgia residents allegedly agreed to purchase a ticket in a lottery sponsored by Kentucky and to share the proceeds if they won. They did win, but apparently Talley had difficulty collecting his share of the proceeds. In Talley's suit to obtain his portion of the funds, a Georgia trial court held that the gambling contract was unenforceable because it was contrary to Georgia's public policy. On appeal, how should the court rule on this issue? Discuss.

Question 2

Lyle is Thelma's agent. Thelma has made it clear to Lyle that she does not want him to sign the contracts that he negotiates; she retains that power. If, despite Thelma's instructions, Lyle negotiates and signs a contract with Tom committing Thelma to spend thousands of dollars, what will the consequences of Lyle's actions be?
a. Lyle must pay Tom out of his own pocket
b. Tom may sue Lyle but not Thelma to enforce the contract
c. Tom can be justified in presuming Lyle had authority to sign the contract only if Tom asked Thelma
d. neither Lyle nor Thelma will be responsible for paying because Lyle exceeded his duty of accounting toThelma
e. none of the other choices

Jordin Calloway · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Gambling contracts
The Georgia Supreme Court held in part that an agreement to purchase a ticket in a lottery sponsored by another state and to share the proceeds if it won was not a gambling contract. The court explained that n a gambling contract one of the parties is certain to lose. By the terms of such a contract the consideration must fall to the one or the other upon the determination of the specified event. In this case, the parties did not contract to gamble against one anotherthey contracted to gamble against the state of Kentucky. The only gambling contract involved was between the state of Kentucky and the holder of the winning lottery ticket. Thus, the issue was whether public policy permitted the parties to evade enforcement of their own agreement. The court held that it did not: There is nothing perceptibly evil, vicious, wicked, immoral or shocking to the prevailing moral sense in this agreement. It was simply an arrangement of convenience and neither party intended to circumvent the law or participate in an illegal act. No Georgia law prohibits the purchase of a lottery ticket in Kentucky and that is the act' contemplated here. That contemplated act was legal, therefore the underlying agreement is also legal and enforceable in Georgia courts. In fact, concluded the court, The public policy of this state would be violated if Talley were denied the opportunity to seek to enforce the alleged agreement.

Answer to Question 2

e