 Moreover, contracting the flu was not something in the plaintiff's control, and so this case should be distinguished from reward cases like "Williams v Carwardine" where someone positively does something to deserve a reward.Second, even if a contract existed, it should be void because of the Lottery Act, which said "wagering contracts" (gambling contracts) were unlawful and void.This was a wager, gambling, like a lottery, as in a number of cases, such as "Brogden v Marriott" "Rourke v Short" and "Taylor v Smetten".