It may be answered: “That is a reasonable point and unobjectionable, yet the difference between the two situations is that the one who vows obligates himself to part with his wealth if he commits an act that breaches the terms of his vow, whereas the contestant obligates himself when someone else outstrips him and he is unable to defeat his opponent.
Still, a person who makes a vow may bind himself to pay out some of his wealth when another bests him, as in his saying, ‘If you beat me, my property is charity.’
Accordingly, the distinction is that in a contest his concern is sometimes to gain a prize and at other times to avert a loss—namely, when the stake is placed by a third party or by both competitors—whereas the one who utters a vow of obstinacy cares only about avoiding a loss. Thus there is both a point of resemblance and a point of difference between them. (1)
Section
What prevents the wager from being classed as a mere promise or gratuitous donation are four considerations: intention, substantive reality, nomenclature, and legal ruling.
-
Intention: The bettor’s aim is not to donate and be the loser; his aim is to profit and be the winner—exactly the opposite of the donor’s aim.
-
Substantive reality: A donation or gift is never contingent upon the performance of an act; once it is made conditional on an act it leaves the realm of gift-giving and enters that of exchange contracts.
-
Nomenclature: The terms wager, racing prize, stake, and reward are not the same as the terms gift, charity, or donation.