 But that would be absurd because there would be no benefit given to the company.And, using the arguments from the Queen's Bench briefly, even if it was a contract between a purchaser and the company, it would still be void as a wagering (gambling) contract or as an insurance contract without the required form.After these arguments were given, the court of appeal indicated they did not need further submissions on the wager or insurance point (they did not think the arguments were very good at all).