The terms “void” and “voidable” are often used interchangeably, but are of a completely different nature. While a non-contract contract is totally unenforceable by law, a cancelled contract is a valid contract. However, the terms of a cancelled contract provide that one or both parties entering into the contract have the option of cancelling the contract at any time. The duty in this type of relationship belongs to the person with influence to prove that he or she did not use his position to exploit the other party. In other situations, one party may be accused, on the basis of previous interactions, of using the trust of the other party to its advantage. Section 23 of the Indian Treaty focuses primarily on the purpose, that is, the purpose of the contract. It finds that the contract itself is illegal and void when such an object is illegal and contrary to public policy and is not legally enforceable. Such types of contracts do not create valid obligations of the parties to their performance and bind them with criminal responsibility in the event of illegality of the act instead of consideration. In addition, for an agreement that can be considered a valid contract, it should include the free consent of the parties, as well as the assurance that the “object” of such a contract is legal. Without respect for these particular conditions, a contract cannot be considered valid in the eyes of the law. Under india`s Treaty Act, an important determinant of an illegal agreement is the “object” of the counterparty. There are a few key elements of Section 23 that are discussed here: under legal orders, quasi-treaties emerged in the Middle Ages in a form of action known in The Latin form such as indebitatus assuming, which means being in debt or having received a debt. This legal principle was the way in which the courts provided one party with payment from the other party, as if there was already a contract or agreement between them.
The defendant`s obligation to be bound by the contract is therefore considered to be implicit in the law. From its earliest uses, quasi-contract was generally imposed to enforce restitution obligations. To define illicit agreements in their most fundamental form, they are seen as agreements that violate existing laws in this area and are criminal in nature. Agreements that are immoral and oppose public order also fall into the category of illegal agreements. Under the Indian Contract Act, there is another term for void agreements. In this area, there is a frequent misunderstanding that assumes that the notions of emptiness and irregular agreements overlap. But that is not the case. There are considerable differences between the two in terms of nature and even consequences. In the figure above, A B made an offer and received an acceptance of it.
However, the purpose of this contract, that is, the commission of theft by B, is not legal and is not criminal in nature. It is precisely this objective of the agreement that makes it an illegal agreement. Both parties are criminally responsible for their actions within the scope and scope of the Indian Penal Code (IBC). In addition, this contract is invalid from the outset, that is, invalidated from the outset. This contract cannot be legally enforced because it requires the execution of a particular act, prohibited by law and constituting a criminal offence. There are many ways to invalidate a contract. If a party is incompetent, it can no longer agree legally on a contract. This may mean that one of the people who enters into the contract when they are unable to act or that they are not in a position to make a correct judgment. Since the agreement is under construction, it is legally enforceable, so neither party is required to agree.