Hello and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to assist you.
Question: “on july 5 1992 Barbara and kitty entered into a bet on the outcome of the 1992 presidential election. On January 28 1993, Barbara who bet on the winner approached kitty, seeking to collect the $3000 kitty had wager but now seek to recover the fund from Barbara. result? why?”
Answer: A contract to do something unlawful is not legally enforceable, and except in very controlled environments (such as in casinos, horse tracks, etc.), gambling is illegal. Therefore, the gambling debt is not legally enforceable, and if Barbara were to sue she would lose.
Have I satisfactorily addressed your concerns? If not, then please feel free to ask for clarification.
If the information that I provided was helpful, then please remember to click the green accept button so that I will receive credit and compensation for my time. Positive feedback is always appreciated as well. Thank you and good luck!
.
DISCLAIMER: Please understand that the complexities of most legal problems cannot be adequately addressed in this setting, and that I am only licensed to practice law in the state of Maryland. Accordingly, you acknowledge (1) that we have not formed an attorney-client relationship, and (2) that my post is general information only and not specific legal advice.
Attorney-At-Law
Licensed in Maryland
Question: “kitty paid barbara the wager but now seek to recover the fund from Barbara. result? why?”
Answer: Now the problem makes more sense. It was a little jumbled at the end of your first post.
Kitty would win a lawsuit against Barbara since Kitty never owed the money in the first place (due to the reasons in my first answer), and the money was not a gift to Barbara. The $3k was basically an payment for a bill that was never legally owed, and Barbara would, therefore, be unjustly enriched if she were allowed to keep the money. Unjust enrichment usually pertains to something like an overpayment, but the theory works the same under both circumstances. With regard to an overpayment, the payee was given too much because the payor mistakenly thought it owed the payee more than she did. Similarly, Kitty thought she owed Barbara more than she did ($3k more), and therefore it too was a mistake to pay.
Does that make sense?