Chapter 1 Acceptance/Revocation Communication of a propose is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. Communication of of acceptance is complete as against the proposer when it is put in the course of transmission to him so as to be outof power of the accepter. Communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Revocation of offer by letter or telegram can be complete when it is despatched. Acceptance to be valid must be absolute and unqalified. A contract with or by minor is a void contract. An acceptance can be revoked at any time before the communication of acceptance of acceptance is complete as against the promise. A proposal stands revoked by communication of notice of revocation by the proposer; by failure of acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent, by death or insanity of proposer to the knowledge of acceptor. Enforceable agreements are made by free concent between competent parties, having lawful consideration and lawful object. A letter of acceptance sent by post is lost in transit, there is a concluded contract as the letter of acceptance is put in the course of transmission. If the proposer prescribes the mode & manner of acceptance, the acceptance should be in the manner & mode prescribed., A general offer open for would at large can be accepted by complying with the conditions of offer. Test of contractual intention is objective, not subjective. Merely because the promiser contends that there was no intention to create legal obligation would not exempt him from liablity Carlill vs caubolic smoke ball co. case-HINT-influenza case-General offer. (Balfour vs Balfour,1919-HINT-Husband & wife case)- A couple went to england on leave. For health reasons the wife was unable to accompany the husband again to ceylon (Husband's place of work). The promise was made by husband to pay 30 pounds per month to his wife as maintenance, but he failed to pay. The husband was held not liable, as there was no intention to create legal relationship. Unenforceable contract is one which is valid in itself but is not capable of being enforced in a counr of law because of some technical defect such as absence of writing, registration, etc. or time barred by law of limitation. The term "illegal agreement" is appropriate. An illegal agreement is narrower in scope Jhawa void agreement. "All illegal agreement are void, but all void agreements are not necessarily illegal. For example- an agreement with a minor is void as against him but not illegal. Where an offer is accepted with the knowledge of the reward, the fact that the informer was influence by motries other than the reward will be immaterial.(Williams vs Carwardine, 1833-wife-liable for reward in law of information- regarding murderes of her husband). An offer need not to be made to an ascertained person, but no contract can arise until it has been accepted by an ascertained person. When two parties makes identical offers to each other, in ignorance of each other's offer, the offers are "cross-offers". Such offers do not contitute accpetance of one's offer by the other and as such there is no completed agreement. (Mc Pherson vs Appana,1951) - mere statement of the lowest price at which the offeror would sell contains no implied contract to sell at that price. (Pharmancentical society of G.B vs Boots cash chemists Ltd,1953)- Display of goods in a shop with price tags attached is not an offer even if there is a "self-service" system in the shop. The customer by picking up makes an offer to buy which is subject to accpetance by shopkeeper. Acceptance may be in the form of express words (written spoken) or may be signified through conduct (implied or tacit viz cashing of a cheque.) A mere mental determination (or intent to accept is not enough leg-keeping agreement in a drawer) (Brogden vs Meropolitan Rail.Co.1817) A communication to any other person other than the person intended to is no communication is the eyes of law. (Felthouse vs Bindley,1863)- Nephew intended his uncle to have the house, but had not communicated to the uncle instead he told the auchovur not to sell the horse as it was already sold of his uncle. Court held that a communication to a stanger, like the auctioner in this case, will not do. In above mentioned case, court also held that an offeror cannot impose upon the offerce the burden of refusal or 'duty of reply'. The offeror cannot time, the same shall be deemed to have been accepted mere silence is no acceptance of offer. Information received froman unauthorized person is ineffective as it is like over-hearing from believed the door. (Powel vs Lee,1908)- In this case the plaintiff is appointment as a teacher was communicated to him unofficially; later, the managers of school by a resolution cancelled his appointment. The plaintiff such for breach of contract but failed. Acceptance has to be in a particular manner if prescribed by the proposer if proposer has not mentioned any manner, than acceptance can be usual reasonable manner. When the acceptance is by telephone or telex (i.e. direct instantaneous communication), the contract is complete only when the acceptance is received (cleary heard and understood) by the offeror. ANSON- Just as when the lighted match comes into contact with gunpowder, there would be an explision and then it will not be possible to bring the things back to the original position, similarly , after the offer is acceted it creates a contract wnere by both the parties become bound and none of them can go back. For a valid acceptance, ther must be an ad idem "concurence of mind", i.e. afreeing on the same thing in the same cource/sense and at the same time. An acceptance witha variation, eg. introducation of new terms,is no acceptance: it is simply a counter proposal, which must be accepted by teh original promisor before a contract is made. A counter offer puts an end to the original offer & it cannot be received by subsequent accetance by the accpetor. A mere inquiry into the terms of a proposal is not the same thing as a counter-proposal. An acceptance made subject to final approval is called provisional acceptance. A tender is in same category as a quotation of prices. it is not offer but an inuitaion to offer. The contract act gives both proposer & acceptor the option of revoking their communication, before a completed contract comes into existence. Section 6 lays down the circumstances when an offer lapses ie. mode of revocation. Proposal in revoked under the following circumstances:- (a) Notice of revocation (b) Capse of time (c) By failure to fulfil a condition precedent. (d) By death or insanity of offeror. No question of revocation can possibly arise in case of a contract over telephone. If the letter of acceptance and the letter of revocation reach together, then also accpetance will be deemed to have been revoked. Chapter 2 Contracts,Voidable contracts & Void Agreements Competency to contract relates to age and saindness of mind. Consideration can be past, present or future. Past consideration is valid in india as well England. An agreement not to raise the pleas of limitation is void. When consent to the contract is caused by coerion 19 is voidable at at the instance of party whose consent has been obtained A's son fouged B's name to a promissory note B under threat of prosecuting A's son obtains a bond From A for the amount of the fouged note. If B sues on this bond, the court may set aside the bond. Where one og the parties is under a mistake as to matter of fact the contract is valid. Consideration & objects are unlawful where it is either forbidden by law or defeat the provision of any law, or which is fraudulent or which is immorel or against the public policy. If only a part of the consideration or object is unlawful, the contract under section 24 shall be void. A contract without consideration is void. consideration shoulb be something id return of promise which both the law & parties regard as having some value. Parties are not competent to contract if any of them is eithor minor, or insane, or declared unqualified. Consent under section 13 means-agreeing on the same thing in the same sense. A contract which is valid inifially however ceases to be inforceable subsequently the contract becomes void when it cease to be inforceable. Agreement the meaning of which is not certain on not capable of being made certain under section 29 is void. An agreement not to pursue legal remedies but to referthe despute to the arbitrator under section 28 is valid. An agreement to refer the dispute to the arbitrator is valid in respect of both disputes already aresen & which maya arese in future. An agreement by way of wager under section 30 is void. An agreement in connection wiht horse-racing under section 30 is valid. An agreement in restrain of marriage under section 26 is void. In only a part of the consideration or object is unlawful, the contract under section 24 shall be be void as a whole. An Agreement shall be void on account of mistake of fact by both the parties. Standard foren of contract is a valid contract. Law of contract primarily specifies the circumstances in which promises are binding on the parties to the contract. A person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another of undue influence of the mental capacityis affected temporarily or permanently by reson of age, illness,mental or bodily dirtress. Agreement to remain unmarried is void. A representation made without knowing it to be false, honestly believing it to be true doesn't amount to fraud. Contract without consideration made in writing & registereda and made on account of natural love and affection is valid. Inadequacy of consideration does not make the contract either void or voidable. Inadequacy ofconsideration is relevant in determing the question of undue influence. Misrepresentation renders the contract voidable. Misrepresentation may be due to innocence as well. (Mcgregor vs Mcgregor, 1888)- A husband and wife withdrew their complaint under an agreement by which the husband promised to pay her an allowance and she to refrain from pledging his credit. Held that there is a binding contract. An agreement not supported by consideration is void(sec 25) Consideration is the cause of the promise and its absence would make the promise a gratutious or bare promise (nudum pactum). Consideration is a return or quid pro quo (something for something), something of value received by the promise as inducement of the promise. Section 2 (d) of the indian contract Act defines consideration. Definition is wider and more comprehensive then is accepted is English courts. Ingredients of condideration are:-(a) That the act or absitence, which is to be a consideration for the promise, should be done by promise or any other person,(b) That the act or abtinence may have already executed or is in process of being done or may still be executory ie. it is promised to be done.(c) That is should be done by promises or any other person. An act shall not be a good consideration for a promise unless it is done at the desire of the promisor. (Durga Prasad vs Baldeo,1880), the plaintiff built a shopping comples on the order of the collector. the shops came to be occupied by the defendants who, in consideration of the plaintiff having expended money in the construction, promised to pay him commission on articles sold be them. The palintiff's actions to recover the commission was rejected on the ground that plaintiff's act was the result not of the promise but of collector's order. A promise is inforceable if there is some consideration for it & it is quite immaterial that it moves from the the promise or any other. This is soemtimes called as "Doctrine of constructive consideration". Under English law, there is privity of consideration ie. consideration must move from the promise & promisor only, a stranger or third person cannot furnish consideration.(Teveddle vs Atkinson,1861) The doctrine of privity of constract means that a contract is a contract between the parties only and no third party, means stranger to the contract, can are upon it even it it is avowedly made for his benefit. Third person, ie. stranger to the contract is not bound by the contract as there is no mutuality (Doctrine of mutuality). Doctrine of privity of contract is rooted in the English common law especially in the case of Teveddle vs Atkinson,1861 and Develop ineumatic tyre Co.Ltd vs Selfridge & Co.1915. There are certain exceptions to doctrine of privity of contract-(a) Trust or change - (A person in whose favour a change or other interest in some specific property has been created may enforce it.)(b) Acknowledgement or estopped - where the terms of a contract a party is required to make a payment to a third person & he acknowledges it to the third person (White making a part-payment), a binding obligation is there by incurred towards him.(c) Covenants reunning with land - A personwho purchases a land with notice that the owner ot the land is bound by certain duties created by an agreement or covenant affecting the land, shall be bound by them although he was not a party to the agreement. (Tulk vs Moxhay,1919) Consideration may consist of a past, present or a future act. A promise to pay time-barred debt & a negotiable instrument issued for a past consideration are both instrument issued for a past consideration are both valid. Under English law, past consideration is no consideration the consideration and promise ought to go together. But a past act done at request will be good consideration for a subsequent promise. In india, section 25(2) adequately covers a past voluntary service ie. a service rendered without any request/promise and there is a subsequent promise to pay for the same. Consideration must be of value in eyes of law. Thus where consideration is physically impossible,illegal,uncertain or illusionay it is not real. As per explanation 2 of sec 25, an agreement to which the consent of the promisor if freely is not void, merely because the consideration is inadequate. Inadequacy of consideration may be taken into account by the court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given. Inadequancy of consideration may in circumstances suggest fraud, coercion, mistake, etc. Forbearance to sec e (or compromise of a pending suit) has always been regarded as valuable consideration. In Kastoori Devi vs Chiranji Lal,1960 the withdrawl of a pending suit by a wife against her husband was held to be a good consideration for his promise to pay her maintenance. Doing of something, which a person is already legally bound to do, either by law or contract, is no consideration. (Collins vs Godefrog) Where a person having received summons to give evidence in a case, a promise to pay to such person for appearing in case is no considered. A contract under seal (found or real ie. which is in writing and which is singed, sealed and delivered) is inforcealbe without consideration. Indian law doesn't recognize above mentioned exception to consideration. Section 25 of the contract Act lays down a few exception ie. when an agreement made without consideration is not void. There need not to be natural love and affection or nearness if relationship between the donor and donee in case of gift. The gift must be complete ie. it has been delivered; a promise of gift being without consideration, is void. Consideration must have some value in the eyes of law; even thought it need not to be adequate(sec 25. Exp.11) A promise to compeneate a person, who has already volutary done soemthing for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do, is inforceable. However,such service should have been rendered voluntarily and without promisor's knowledge and for promisor only. A promise to pay a time-barred debt is inforceable. The promise referred to in sec 25(3) must be express. Section 10 of contract Act requires that the parties must be competent to contract. Sec 11. defines who are competent to contract. Minors, person of unsoung mind and persons disqualified by law are incompetent to contract. The age of majority is 18, but where a guardian is appointed, it is 21 - However, by an amendment in 1999 to the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the age of majority is fixed as 18 years for every person, irrespection of the fact of appointment of a guardian. Minor'a agreement is abosutely void. (Moharibibi case) The specific performance of a contract(actual carrying out of the contract as agreed) is not possible in the case of an agreement by a minor. Parents & guardians of a minor can contract on behalf of the minor can contract on behalf of the minor. If contract is within the competence of the guardian and it is for benefit of the minor, it is specifially enforceable. There is no estopped against minor even is he has acted fraudulendtly. In Khan gul vs Lakha singh,1928 - law of estopped which is rule of evidence is a general law and this has to be read subject to the special law contained in the indian contract Act. Minor will not be liable for a tort arising out of contract for the reason that such liability is an indirect way of enforcing his agreement. Where tort is independent of the contract, the more fact that a contract is also involved will not absolve the minor from liability. The proposition that "the lack of capacity goes to the root of the contract and invalidates it completely" is subject to the equitable doctrine of restitution and the beneficial contracts in the case of minor. Under English law, if the minor has unjustly enriched hunsey, equity demands that such property or goods be restored the English courts developted the equitable'doctrine of restitution' to deal with matter. In Leslie (R) Ltd. vs sheill,1914. the court laid down following three proposition on equitable doctrine of restitution -(a) If an infant obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to restore it, but only so long as the same is traceable in his possession. (b) Where the infant has sold the goods or converted them, he cannot be made to repay the value of goods, because that would amount to enforcing a void contract.(c) The doctrine of restitution is not applied where infant has obtained cash instead of goods, for "restitution stopped where repayment began." The English Doctrine of restitution is contained in the Indian law with some modifications in it. In Moharibibi vs Dharmodas Ghose,1903, - court observed that sec 64 and 65 if tge Act (Restoration of benefits received under a voidable or void contract) starts from the basis of there being a contract between competent parties, while in a minor's case there never was & never could have been any contract. In Khan gul vs Lakha singh the court observed that the doctrine of restitution would not be of any help unless it was extended in India to couer money cased also. (Sec 33, SRA, 1963) - The law commission of india (9th Report) proferred the view enunciated in khan case and accordingly the controvery has now been set at rest by new specific Relief Act,1963. The principle of restitution is contained in sec 33 of specific Relief Act, 1963-(1) Where a void or voidable contract has been cancelled at the instance of a party there to.(ie. mimor goes to the court as plaintiff for cancellation of contract), the court may require him to restore such benefits as he has received under the contract and to make any compensation to the other party which justice may require.(2) Where the minor is defendant in a case and he resists the enforcement of the suit on the ground the he is incompetent to contract , the court may ask him to restore such benefits to the other party, to the extent he or his estate has benefited there by (Clause b). The object of section 33 (1) is to restore the parties to their original position as for as possible. Sub-section (2) of section 33, the parties are tried to be put to the pre-contract position. Moreowen compensation in money is also permitted. A minor is allowed to enforce a contract which is of some benefit to him and under which he is required to bear no obligation. A lease to a minor is void. Trade contracts are not included in beneficial contracts. thus when a minor, while carryig on business enters into a trade contract, such contract will not be binding on him. A person cannot, on attaining majority, ratify an agreement made by him during his minority. Retification relates back to the date of the making of the contract and , therefore , which was then void, cannot be made valid by subsequent retification. Section 12 of Indian contract Act defines the person of unsound mind. A person is said to the be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is unsound mind. Under English law, a person of unsound mind is competent to contract, although he may avoid his contract if he satisfies the court that he was incapable of understanding the contractand the other party knew. it the contract is voidable at his option. Third type of incompetent persons, as per sec 11, are those who are "disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject." Thus, aliens enemies, foreign soureigns & ambassodors, conuicts, married women (with respect to their husbans's properties) insoluent in certain cases & joint - stock compances & couporation incouporated under a special Act (eg - L.I.C , U.I.T) are disqualified persons. According to sec 14, consent is said to be free when it is not caused by (a) Coercion (section 15)(b) under influence (section 16)(c) Fraud (section 17)(d) Misrepresentation (sec 18) (e) Mistake (section 20,21 and 22) Where consent to are agreement is caused by coenicion, under influence,fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Where consent is caused by bilateral mistake the agreement is void. A void agreement is not enforceable at option of either party. According to sec 15, consent is said to have caused by coercion when it is obtained by pressure exerted by either of the following techniques-(a) committing or threatening to commit any act foubidden by the indian penal code,or (b) Unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property. The threat to commit suicide amounts to cercion under section 15. Where a contract was made to avoid the threatened prosecution this was held to be no coercion.(Askari Mirza vs Bibi jai kishori,1912) To threaten a criminal prosecution is not per sc an act forbidden by IPC such an act could be so forbidden if it amounted to a threat to file a false charge. Threat to strike is no coercion, because the strike may be lawful weapon for collective bargaining. When contract is made under a statutory compulsion there is no coercion. Under common law, duress consits in actual voilence or threatof voilence to a person. it only includes fear of loss to life or bodily hawn, & not to his goods, unlike section 15 of the Indian contract Act. In England duress should proceed from a party to the contract and also should be directed against the party to the contract himself, or his wife, child, or near relative. In India, coercion may proceed from a person who is not a party to contract and it may also be directed against a person who again may be a stranger to contract According to sec 16 (1), where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other there is said to be undue influence. A persong is said be able to dominate the will of another-(a)where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduacially relation to the other.(b) wher he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity. Where a person when is in a position to dominate the will of another enters into a contract with him & the transactions appear, on the face of it or on evidence adduced, to be unconsionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. undue influence is said to be a subtle species of fraud. in all cases, where there is active trust and confidence between the parties on the parties are not on equal fosting, it can be said that one party is able to dominate the will of the person . Fiduciary relationship meanss a relationship of confidence and trust. It is not necessary that the personin a position to dominate the will of the other party must himself be benefitted. It is sufficient it the third person in whom he is interested in benefitted.(Chinnamma vs Devengh sangha,1973) A person is said to be in distress when his mental capacityis temporarilly or permanently affected. such a person is easily persuaded to give consent to a contract which may be unfauorable to him. An 'unconsionable baugain' is one as no sane man not setting under a delusion, would take advantage of it. The term 'unconsionable' means something as shows no regard for conscience and which id irreconciable with what is right or reasonable. Example of unconscionable baugains- A person , without having to means of subsistence, in order to prefer are appeal against a judgment, borrowed Rs 3,700 on a bond promising to pay Rs 25,000 within a year from recovery of the possession of are estate. It is important to note that every transaction where the terms are to the disadvantage of one of the parties need not necessarily to be unconscionable. An agreement to which the consent is caused by fraud is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. According to sec 17, fraud means and includes any of the following acts done with "intent to deceive" on to induce a person to enter into a contract- (i) The suggestion that a fact is true when it is not true and the person making the suggestion doesn't believe it to be true.(ii) Active concealment of a fact by a person who has knowledge or belief of the fact.(iii) promise made without any intention of performing it. (iv) any other act fitted to deceive,or(v) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent (eg - according to Transfer or property Act, the seller of immovable property must disclose to the bufer any material defect in the property of the seller's title). Fraud by a stranger to the contract doesn't affect contract However, coercion as well as 'under influence' by a stranger to a contract affect the contract. While fraud is a crul wrong, 'coercion' is a criminal wrong also. Ordinarily, passive concealment or mere silence in so fraud as a contracting party is not obliged to disclose each & everything to the other party. But, silence will amount to fraud wher party was under a "duty to speak". "Duty to speak" arises where one contracting pary reposes trust and confidence in the other. A contract of insurance is, therefore, called a contract of absolute or utmost good faith, uberrima fides. Similarly a father selling his horst to his son must tell him if the horse is unsound as the son is likely to rely on his father. A person may keep silence, but it he speaks, a duty arises to disclose the whole truth. "Half-truth" amounts of fraud. When the silence amounts of fraud, but the other party could discover the truth by ordinary diligence, he cannot avoid the contract. A contract the consent to which is induced by misrepresent acion is voidable at the option of the deceived party. Misrepresentation means mis-statement of a fact material to the contract. When a person makes a false statement which he himself believes to be true, and doesn't intend ot deceive the other party, there is "misrepresentation". The representation must have been instrumental in inducing the other party to inter into a contract:- Section 18 includes the following types of misrepresentation-(i) Unvarranted statement - (Dorry vs Peek). Where the directors of a company mentioned in the prospecters that they had got the authority to run tramways with steam power; the permission had not yet been granted but the directors believed that it will be grounded. The permission was refused. the directors were held liable not for fraud as they had not intention to deceive but for misrepresentation.(ii) Breach of duty- any breach of duty which brings an advantage to the person committing it by misleading the other to his prejudice is a misrepresentation (constructive fraud).(iii) Inducing mistake about subject-matter- causing however innocently a party to an arrangement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement is also misrepresentation. Mirepresentation should be of facts 'material or vital' to the contract. In fraud the person making the statement knows it to be false (intentional wrong) while in misrepresentation he believes that the statement is true (innocent act). Section 19 deals with the effect of flaw in consent caused by coercion, misrepresentation and fraud adn sec 19-A when consent obtained by undue influence. Section 20 deals with as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement. Section 20 comes into operation-(i) when both the parties to an agreement are mistaken,(ii) their mistake is as to a matter of fact(iii) that factis essential to the agreement. To make an agreement void on account of mistake the mistake must be common or mutual. The explanation of sec 20 provides that an erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing (subject-matter of agreement) is not a mistake. Sec 21 declares that a contract is not voidable because it is caused by a mistake as to any law is force in india. But mistake as to foreign law will be considered as mistake of fact. Whenever the object of an agreement is opposed to public policy, it becomes a void agreement under section 23. Some examples of public policy.(a) Trading with an enemy.(b) trafficking in public officer.(c) Interference with administration of justice.(d) Marriage brokerage contracts. As per section 23, the consideration or object of an agreement are lawful unless.(i) It is forbidden by law,or (ii) is of such a nature that it would defeat the provision of law.(iii) it is fraudulent.(iv) it involves or implies injury to the person or property.(v) the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Example of forbidden by law-sale of liquor without licence, and agreement to pay money it a person commits a wime or tort, etc. Merely because a person doesn't observe statutory requirements doesn't mean that the agreement is void. An agreement to maintian an illegitinats child was been held to be not unlawful. An agreement made of for a "fraudulent" perpose is illegal, eg-agreement to defraud the creditors or defraud revenue authorities, or investors in a company. (Jai Ram vs Kahna Ram) if two persons agree notto compete with each other, and ond of them in consideration for the other perosn not competing in the submission of tenders agrees to pay a certain sum of money the agreement doesn't aim at defrauding anybody, and same is enforceable. If object of an agreement is to manage to prounce for a contract fro are party which would otherwise be refused, the object fraudulent. An agreement trainted with immorality (includes sexual) is not allowed to be enforced. A agrees to let her daughter for hire to B for concubinage. The agreement is void because it is immoral even though such act is not punishable under the IPC. An agreement apposed to public policy is void. Public policy means the policy of law at a stated time. An act which is injurious to the society's is social and economic interests is against public policy. Public policy is an unruly horse, and when once you get ascride it you never know where it will carry you- Burrough,J. English law of maintenance and champerty have no application in india. Maintenance refers to an unconnected third-party essisting to maintain litigation, by providing for example, financial assistance. Champerty is a from of maintenance where a third-p party pays some or all of the litigation costs return for a share of the proceeds. A fair agreement to assist a person in the enforcener of his legal right (viz. recovery of property) may be held valid even if person providing the assistance is to be reimburesed out of teh proceeds out of the action. According to sec 24,if any part of a single consideration for one or more object, or any one or any part of one of several consideration for a single object is unalwfull the agreement is void. if a part of the consideration object ehich is unlawfull can be separated from the other lawful part, the court will enforce only the lawful part. If severance is not possible the whole of the agreement is void. Thus, partial illigality may avoid the whole agreement. There are some agreements which have been specifically or expressly declared as void by the Act. They are- (i) Agreements of which the consideration or object is unlawful (section 23 and 24).(ii) Agreement without consideration .(section 25).(iii) Agreement in restraint of marriage (section 26) (iv) Agreement in restrain of trade (section 27)(v) Agreement in restrain of legal proceeding (section 28)(vi) Agreement which are uncertain and ambigious (section 29)(vii) Agreement by way of wager (sec 30)(viii) Agreement to do impossible acts (section 56) Every agreement in restrain of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void (section 26). The retraint maybe general or parties. A penalty upon remarriage may not be construed as a restraint of marriage. If the agreement is not in the form of promise to marry a particular lady, but it stipulates that the promisor will not marry any other lady than the promise, the agreement is void. An agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession trade or business of any bind, is to that extend void (section 27). Whether restraint is general or partial unqualified, qualified, if the agreement is in the nature of a restraint of trade, it is void. An agreement requiring a person not to trade within a certain areas or for a certain duration is void. A contract by a newspaper proprictor to comment on the conduct of a particular person void. In England all agreements in restraint of trade are void, unless there is some justification for the restraint making it reasoable. In india, law is strictor. it recognizes only certain exceptions through statutes & judicial decisions. The first statutory exception is in section 27 itself According to it, an agreement by a person, who sells the good will of his business not to carry on a similar business not to carry on a similor business within specified local limits, so long as the buyer carries one similar business. Noth with standing the rule contained in sec 27, that an agreement in restraint of trade is void, such an agreement can be validly made by the partners in four situations mentioned under section 11 (2), 36 (2), 54 and 55 (3) of Indian partnership Act, 1932 Section 11 (2), indian partnership Act, permits the partners of a partenship firm to make a contract which provises that a partner shall not carry on any business other than the firm while he is a partner. Another exception is contained in section 36 (2), on Indian partnership Act, according to which such an agreement may be made between the outgoing partner and the remaining partners who continue the business of the firm. Section 54 of partnership contains another exception to the rule and permits such an agreement to be made upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm. Ace to section 54, partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, makes an agreement that some are all of them will not carry on a business similar to that os the firm within a specified period or within specified period or within specified local limits. An agreement made v/s 54 of partnership Act, 1932, shall be valid if the restrictions imposed are reasonable. sec 55 (3) any partners may make an agreement with the buyer that such partner will not carry on any business similar to that of the firm withing a specified period or withing specified local limits upon the sale of he goodwill of a firm. Another exception is, an agreement of service under which an employee agrees that he will serve a paricular employer for a certain duration, and that he will not serve anubody else during that period is valid agreement. During the period of employment the employer an exclusive right to avail the services of his employee and therefore a restraint on the employee to service somebody else at eh same time is reasonable. such an agreement is not hit by the doctrine of restraint of trade. The "guaden leave clause". operates after the cessation of employment either upon termination or resignation from service. While on garden leave, the employee no longer 'works' for the employer and doesn't have access to the employer's clientale or thier fellow employees. However, the employee continues to receives remuneration and generally remains on the roles of the employer until the expiry of the garden leave period. Under this clause, the employer is prohibited from carrying on any business which competes directly or undirectly with the whole or any part of the visa processing services or a business similar to the business of the employer for a period of three months after serving the notice period and claing to be an employer. This clause is hit by section 27 of the contract Act,1872. In V.F.S. global services Pvt. Ltd vs suprit Roy, the bombay high court held that the clause as in restraint of trade said the to obstaict an employee else where was not fair or proper. Agreement between traders ro manufactures fixing price, regulating the supply of goods, putting profits in a common pool and dividing the same among themselves are neither void on the ground of being opposed to public policy nor are they deemed to be in restraint of trade. Solve agreements or exlusive dealiny agreementsit that a produceror manufactures sells his goods in market through a sole agent or distributor and the latter agrees in firm not to deal with the goods of any other manufacturor. So long as the objective of teh agreement is the benefit of the parties to the contract rather than monopolizing the trade, there is nothing unreasonable in it and the agreement is not considered to be in restraint of trade. However, where buyer doesn't agree to purchase the whole quatity, he cannot restraint the seller from the setting his supliers to other. When the object of the agreement is to corner goods ot ot monopolize trade, or the restraint is for an undeuly long time, such an agreement cannot considered lawful. An agreement in restrain of trade is void only to the extend it imposes restraint. It a part of the agreement doesn't impose restaint and the other part does, the agreement may be void as regards the second part of it. Sectin 28 states that an agreement absolutely restraininh a party from enforcing his rights through a court of law, or an agreement whicn places a limit as to the time within which a right can be enforced,is void (Amendment in ICA, in 1997). An agreement to out the jurisdiction of a court is opposed to puclic policy policy and the same is void both in india and England. the agreement is void, id the restraint is an void, if the restraint is an absolute one. If an agreement between the parties stipulates a smaller time limit than prescribed under the indian contract Act, the agreement is void under section 28. An agreement curtailing the period of limitation has been distinguished from an agreement resulting in the realing or for feiture of the rights if area action is not brought withing a certain period. section 28 of the contract Act has benn amended by Indian contract Amendment Act, 1997. The new provision contained in section 28 (b) states that every agreement which entinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto; from any liability under irub respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party thereto from enforcing the rights is void that extent. Exception 1 to section 28 allows are agreement to be made between two or more persons by which, they are to reger any dispute which may arise between them in future to arbitnation and only the amount awauded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred. Exception 2 of section 28 states that question which have already arisen between the parties may be referred by them to arbitration by a contract in writing such an agreement is also valid. According to section 29, agreements the meaning of which is not certain or capable of being made certain are void. It is necessary that there should be no ambignity about what the parties intend. It the meaning of an agreement is neither certain, or capable of being made certain, the agreement is void. Section 30 declauses wagering agreements as void. The essentials of wagering agreement are-(a) Parties have opposite views regarding an uncertain event.(b) Ther are clances of gain or loss to the parties on the determination of the event one way or the other.(c) The parties have no other interest except winering or losing of bet. Lottery means a scheme for distribution of prizes by draw oflots ot by any other procedure which depends on chance only. The agreement to pay prizes on lottery is an agrteement by was of wager & therefore, void under section 30 of teh Act. Teji Mandi transaction is a contract which one of the parties is given a double option either to purchase or to sell, which ever would suit him, a certain commodity at a certain commodity at a certain rate on a specified future date i.e. teh void day. Section 30 declares are agreement by way of wager as void. Thougha wagering agreement is void and unenforceable it is not forbidden by law and therefore the object of a collateral agreement is not unlawful under section 23 of the contract Act. Thus, agreement collateral to wagering agreement are not void. Section 30 contains an exception in favour of cetain prizes fro horse racing. Thers is no exception in respect of lotteries. Therefore, a contract to purchase a lottery ticket, or to share the prize won in a lottery, are void & unenforceable. A crossword puzzle where winning og the prize depended on the clance of a solution is a lottery. Where result depends on the exercise of the skill of the person sending the entry, it is not a lottery.