A company`s prospectus contained a statement that the company had been authorized by a special Act of Parliament to operate trams by steam or mechanical force. The power to use steam was rejected to the board of directors and, as a result, the company was dissolved. The complainant, who had bought a few shares, sued the directors for fraud. They were not held accountable because they honestly thought that once Parliament had authorized the use of steam, the approval of the board of directors was something that had to happen. It follows that the person who makes a false presentation is not guilty of fraud if he honestly believes in his truth. Therefore, deliberate misrepresentation is essential to fraud. It should be noted that an insurance contract is not a betting contract, an insurance contract is covered by insurance contracts. Misrepresentation must be the cause of consent, in the sense that consent would not have been given without the misrepresentation. It must have played an essential role in the applicant`s decision whether or not to conclude the contract. The effects and applicability of a betting contract can be understood by the principle that it has been expressly annulled from the outset by the Indian Contracts Act and that, therefore, even section 65 of the Indian Contracts Act does not apply to it, since the contract is void, but it is not mentioned anywhere that this type of contract is prohibited by law. Which, in turn, implies that outside the state of Gujarat and Maharashtra, betting contracts are not valid and legal in other states. Therefore, these agreements are not valid as a bet value and, therefore, no legal action can be taken to recover something that would have been won in a bet or entrusted to a person to stick to the result of a game or other uncertain event on which a bet is made.

This was also done in the case of Badridas Kothari v. Meghraj Kothari AIR in 1967, the court decided that although a debt certificate was executed for the payment of the debt resulting from the betting transaction, the debt was not considered enforceable. Thus, the winner cannot recover the money, but before it is paid to him, the depositor is reimbursed by the interested party. He was also seen in the case of Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeo`s 1959 AIR 781 stated in its judgment that although a bet is not illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore all procedures and transactions guaranteed for the main transaction are enforceable as such. Since a betting contract is an inconclusive contract, some exceptions are as follows: it is proven that the consideration can come from a third party, but that he cannot take legal action on his own consent. But there has been a lot of confusion on this point. Therefore, although the definition of “consideration” is broader in Indian law than in English law, since the common law is applicable, it is generally accepted that the third party is not in a position to enforce the contract. It is not enough to demonstrate that the importance of the treaty is uncertain, it must also be shown that it cannot be made safe.

Mere indeterminacy or uncertainty, which can be eliminated by correct interpretation, cannot invalidate a contract[xxiv]. Making a party to an agreement err, however innocent it may be, is also a misrepresentation (Article 18(3)). The object is at the heart of the agreement. This must be due to the quality or value that the parties expected at the time of the conclusion of the contract. If one of the parties, whatever it may be, pushes the other to make an error in the nature or quality of the object, there is a misrepresentation. Figure: X agrees to pay Y, Rs. 100,000 if Y Z gets married. Z, however, marries A. Y`s marriage to Z must now be considered impossible, although it is possible that A will die and Z will marry after Y. .