Case anasysis

FACTS: On April 30, 2010, Barack and George entered into a bet on the outcome of the 2010 Kentucky Derby. On January 28, 2011, Barack, who bet on the winner, wants to collect the $3,000 George had wagered. George paid Barack the $3,000 wager but now wants to recover the funds from Barack.
ISSUE: Whether or not George can recover the $3,000 wager from Barack?
WHO WINS: In this case Barack wins.
RATIONALE: In a wager the parties stipulate that one shall win and the other lose depending upon the outcome of an event in which their sole ‘‘interest’’ arises from the possibility of such gain or loss. All States have legislation pertaining to gambling or wagering, and U.S. courts generally refuse to recognize the enforceability of a gambling agreement. Thus, if Barack makes a bet with George on the outcome of a game, the agreement is unenforceable by either party. If George refuses to pay the wager, Barack gets nothing. However, George paid. And then he repents and wants to recover the funds. In most case when an agreement is illegal, both parties are in equal fault, neither party can successfully sue the other for breach or recover for any performance rendered. Therefore, in this case, Barack win.
RULE OF LAW: The courts will not enforce agreements declared illegal by statute. The law does not provide a remedy for the breach of an unenforceable agreement and thus ‘‘leaves the parties where it finds them.’’ Gambling Statutes prohibit wagers, which are agreements that one party will win and the other lose depending upon the outcome of an event in which their only interest is the gain or loss. A party to an illegal agreement may, prior to performance, withdraw from the transaction and recover whatever he has contributed, if the party has not engaged in serious misconduct.