Lottery purchased by proxy wins big, who does the prize belong to?
[2] Compiled from: Xiamen Haicang District Court, Shandong High Court
[3] Many people enjoy buying lottery tickets, and as the number of buyers grows, disputes over lottery tickets have become a relatable social topic. Why was someone taken to court after entrusting another to buy a winning lottery ticket?
Case review
[4] In May 2022, Guo and Ke met and added each other on WeChat.
[5] The next day, Ke invited Guo and Guo’s colleague Xie to form a five-person WeChat group, and the two also joined two lottery-purchasing chain groups.
[6] From May 7 to May 11, 2022, Ke repeatedly entrusted Guo via WeChat to buy lottery tickets on his behalf in the two chain groups, usually paying Guo for the tickets by sending WeChat red packets before the draw.
On May 14, 2022, after Ke issued a purchase instruction again in the five-person WeChat group, Guo immediately sent a purchase intention in two lottery-pooling WeChat groups and paid the lottery ticket fee to the lottery outlet customer service staff.
When the lottery results were announced that day, the Super Lotto first prize was won, with a prize amount of 12.64 million yuan (42 shares in total). After deducting personal income tax, Ke’s two shares could receive a prize of over 480,000 yuan. After the draw, Ke transferred 108 yuan to Guo via WeChat on the same day, and Guo accepted the transfer.
Shortly thereafter, Guo filed a lawsuit with the Xiamen Haicang District Court, claiming that Ke had not paid the lottery ticket fee in advance and that the lottery ticket in question was purchased by Guo himself, demanding that Ke pay the lottery prize of over 480,000 yuan.
After trial, the Xiamen Haicang District Court held that before purchasing the lottery ticket in question, Ke issued a purchase instruction to Guo via WeChat. Since Guo had previously purchased lottery tickets for the defendant multiple times, he should have clearly understood that Ke’s instruction this time, as before, was to request Guo to purchase the lottery ticket on his behalf, rather than providing information for Guo to buy the ticket for himself. After receiving the defendant’s instruction, Guo completed the purchase of the lottery ticket and later accepted the payment from Ke, forming a mandate relationship between the parties. As the agent, Guo should adhere to the principle of good faith and handle the entrusted matter according to its content; the proceeds obtained from handling the entrusted matter for Ke should naturally belong to Ke. Guo’s claim that Ke should pay him the lottery prize of over 480,000 yuan lacked factual and legal basis, and the court did not support it. Ultimately, the court ruled to dismiss all of plaintiff Guo’s claims.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 919
A mandate contract is a contract in which the principal and the agent agree that the agent shall handle the principal’s affairs.
[1] The author's perspective
[1] When it comes to lottery-related lawsuits, people often think of the characteristics of lottery tickets being non-registered and non-replaceable, so they often assume that if someone else takes the ticket or buys it on their behalf, they cannot get it back. In reality, each case needs to be analyzed individually. For example, in this case, the relationship has always been one of entrustment, which became the key point. Therefore, when entrusting others to do something, one should find a reliable person and make a clear expression of intent. As the trustee, one should adhere to the principle of good faith. For their own interests and to avoid unnecessary trouble, both parties should promptly retain relevant evidence so that, in the event of a dispute, they can more effectively prove the facts of the case and protect their legitimate rights and interests.
