the winner(1) is entitled to the wage for his work, because he labored for a consideration that was never delivered to him; therefore he deserves the standard remuneration, just as in the case of a defective lease(2).

I say: This opinion is plainly questionable, for the winner has rendered no service to the one who staked the prize. The benefit of his effort returns solely to himself, not to the staker; hence the latter has not received any of his services and is not obliged to compensate him.

We have already shown(4) that this contract does not fall under hire (ijarah) or reward-based commission (juʿalah). We listed many differences between them, and it is impermissible to classify it with either.

Nor may it be said that this resembles someone who promises a reward to another on condition that he perform work for a third party—such as sewing Zayd’s garment or building his house—on the grounds that the benefit likewise reaches someone other than the worker.

If it is argued: “Every contract that obliges payment of the named sum when valid obliges payment of an equivalent when defective(5), as in sales, leases, and marriage,” we reply: That rule applies to contracts of exchange and partnership that are valid in themselves(6). This contract, however, is neither of those; it is an independent contract in its own right, as has already been clarified.