Is a contract for purchasing lottery tickets on credit valid?
[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court, China Court Network
[3] In commodity transactions, it is common to exchange money for goods. If someone sells goods to consumers on credit, is their sales contract valid?
Case review
[4] In 2008, Mao opened a lottery shop in Urumqi, earning income by selling lottery tickets. Wang frequently bought lottery tickets at Mao's shop, and over time, they became friends. Since Wang had to work during the day and couldn't always visit Mao's shop to buy tickets, he entrusted Mao to purchase lottery tickets on his behalf via phone, WeChat, and other means.
[5] According to regulations, lottery agents are prohibited from selling lottery tickets on credit or through credit-based methods. Although Mao was aware of this rule, he repeatedly purchased lottery tickets on credit for Wang to retain him as a customer. By the time Mao sought to recover the debt, Wang owed him over 17,000 yuan in lottery ticket payments.
[6] Subsequently, Mao repeatedly urged Wang to repay the debt via phone, text messages, WeChat, and other means. Each time, Wang evaded payment with excuses like "I'll pay next time" or "I'll give it to you when I get paid," never transferring a single cent to Mao.
After multiple attempts to demand payment yielded no results, in October of this year, Mao sued Wang in the Tianshan District People's Court of Urumqi, demanding Wang pay over 17,000 yuan in lottery ticket fees. In court, the defendant Wang argued that he did not recognize the amount claimed by the plaintiff Mao.
The court found after trial that the plaintiff Mao held a lottery sales permit and was a legitimate lottery agent. The defendant Wang voluntarily purchased lottery tickets from the plaintiff, establishing a legal and valid lottery ticket sales contract relationship, which was lawful, genuine, and effective, and should be protected by law. The defendant, having purchased lottery tickets from the plaintiff's lottery sales outlet, was obligated to pay the corresponding price. During this period, the plaintiff sent text messages to the defendant demanding payment for the overdue lottery ticket fees, and the defendant replied via text messages without denying the amount owed or the facts.
In summary, the court supported the plaintiff Mao's claim demanding the defendant Wang pay over 17,000 yuan in arrears.
Regulations on the Administration of Lottery
Article 18
Lottery issuing institutions, lottery sales institutions, and lottery agents shall not engage in the following acts:
Selling lottery tickets on credit or through credit transactions.
Article 41
A lottery agent who commits any of the following acts shall be ordered to correct by the civil affairs department or the sports administrative department, and fined between 2,000 and 10,000 yuan; any illegal gains shall be confiscated:
(5) Selling lottery tickets on credit or through credit transactions. If a lottery agent is penalized for the aforementioned act, the lottery issuing institution or lottery sales institution has the right to terminate the lottery agency contract.
[1] The author's perspective
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Mao's violation of the relevant regulations renders the sales contract between him and Wang invalid. Clearly, there is no causal relationship between the two.
During the operation of his lottery station, Mao violated the regulation in the "Regulations" prohibiting credit sales. Such regulations are essentially administrative rules governing the operation of lottery stations, not directly targeting the conduct or content of sales contracts, nor are they mandatory provisions affecting contract validity. Therefore, Mao's violation of the above regulations does not result in the legal consequence of invalidating the sales conduct, but relevant authorities may impose corresponding administrative penalties based on this.
