Jake Paul v Tommy Fury – Now Tommy Has Won Can He Legally Enforce The Double Or Nothing Wager?

Boxing and media fans will no doubt have been caught up in what was coined the most talked-about match of the year. The match had been building up for the last two years and has now seen Tommy Fury walk away with the win.

As with most big matches nowadays, the entertainment was not only contained within the ring and the antics outside of it undoubtedly created a high-profile match.

During the build-up to a boxing match boxers will often participate in press conferences and “face-offs” to build up hype and psych their opponent out. During the last face-off, Jake Paul attempted to up the ante by offering Tommy Fury a double or nothing bet if he was feeling confident.

The offer was that if Tommy Fury won Jake Paul would double the sums he was due to receive but if he lost he would not be paid at all. Without hesitation, John Fury, Tommy’s father, agreed to the bet. But was this sufficient for Tommy to now rely on that bet and request he is paid double what he is due?

Can Tommy Fury legally enforce the double or nothing wager offered by Jake Paul?

In considering the enforcement of the wager the agreement should be treated as a variation to the contract. This means the usual contract requirements must be met, being:

Taking these requirements in turn, firstly a clear offer can be found in that Jake Paul offered Tommy Fury the chance to double his purse. The acceptance of that offer, however, is not as straightforward. Whilst the offer was accepted it was not directly accepted by Tommy himself and instead by his father. A person may accept an offer on behalf of another providing that person is a recognised agent of the offeree. Whilst John Fury is seen to be a member of Tommy’s team it is not clear as to whether he may be deemed to be an agent and this may boil down to the terms of the original contract or a matter of interpretation to be decided by a Court.

The next hurdle in enforcing the debt is the form of consideration. The parties had already entered into a contract to box each other in return for a sum of money. A variation to receive more money or nothing therefore may not be sufficient in forming consideration for the wager. This may also fall to be another issue for the Court to consider but if the parties sought to cement the bet, Jake Paul, as the offeror, should have paid Tommy Fury a sum of money at the time of the variation which would have formed consideration.

Finally, the common intention to form a binding contract was not clear on the face of it. Was this only agreed in front of the cameras to build up the hype with no intention of actually complying with the agreement? According to Jake Paul’s version of events, it would appear there was no common intention on the basis that he alleges Tommy never signed the follow-up contract to create a legally binding agreement.

Considering the wager on a legal basis it is unlikely Tommy Fury can now go back to the wager and seek Jake Paul doubles his purse. Whilst Tommy Fury may be wishing he made the wager legally binding, Jake Paul will be relieved to learn he will not walk away with nothing after potentially losing the risky bet.