We are going to examine the nature of a wagering contract and the contractual and taxation implications of each stage of the contract. Overall this is with a mind to considering whether the best characterisation cryptocurrency is as the game of chance upon which punters wage, rather than some other form of property.
Whether it be a roulette wheel, a poker machine or a horse race, there are many games of chance upon which to bet. There is a contract formed with consideration and obligations on each party. But what is the nature of the rights over time? What if a bet is placed on roulette wheel at 1 minute to midnight 30th June, the wheel spins for 2 minutes and the result is determined 1st July. When are the winnings (or losses) derived (by a professional gambler). We will then compare the nature of the wagering contract and game of chance to volatile cryptocurrencies, 92% of which have failed to zero and for which the average lifespan is 1.22 years. We will examine the explanation of wagering contract given in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball by Hawkins J as a basis for our discussions. Please note that this is not the final decision in this litigation and therefore is not the case that you would have read as an undergraduate.
Led by Adrian Cartland.
Required Reading:
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892) 2 QB 484