There are, moreover, many other distinctions between them whose full enumeration would be lengthy; reflect on them.

Section
The following points show that it cannot be classified as a juʿālah (contingent-fee contract):

First: The worker in a juʿālah (1) does not set a reward for someone who defeats and overpowers him; rather, he commits his money (2) to something whose benefit will come back to him. Were he (3) to commit it to something from which he derives no benefit, the contract would be invalid and mere folly.

Second: In a juʿālah the work may be undefined, as in the statement, “Whoever returns my runaway slave shall have such-and-such,” whereas in a racing contract the work must be specified and known.

Third: The compensation in a juʿālah may likewise be undefined, as when a ruler says, “Whoever shows me a fortress or citadel shall receive one-third or one-quarter of whatever is taken from it,” whereas this is not admissible in a racing contract.

Fourth: The bettor’s intent is to incapacitate his opponent and prevent him from completing the task, unlike the party who makes a juʿālah, whose purpose is to see the task accomplished and duly fulfilled.

Most of the earlier points that distinguish it from hire-contracts apply here as well.