Q.

Essential Elements of a valid contract:

“All agreements are contracts if they are made by free consent of parties, competent to contract,
for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be
void.”
1. Agreement
To constitute a contract there must be an agreement. An agreement is composed of two
elements—offer and acceptance. The party making the offer is known as the offeror, the party to
whom the offer is made is known as the offeree. Thus, there have to be two parties to an
agreement. They both must be thinking of the same thing in the same sense. In other words, there
must be consensus-ad-idem.

2. Intention to create legal relationship

There should be an intention on the part of the parties to the agreement to create a legal
relationship. An agreement of a purely social or domestic nature is not a contract.

3. Free and genuine consent

The consent of the parties to the agreement must be free and genuine. The consent of the parties
should not be obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion or mistake. If the
consent is obtained by any of these flaws, then the contract is not valid.

4. Parties competent to contract

The parties to a contract should be competent to enter into a contract. According to Section 11,
every person is competent to contract if he (i) is of the age of majority, (ii) is of sound mind, and
(iii) is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
Thus, there may be a fault in the capacity of parties to the contract. The fault in capacity may be
due to minority, lunacy, idiocy, drunkenness or status. If a party to a contract suffers from any of
these faults, the contract is unenforceable except in certain exceptional circumstances.

5. Lawful consideration

The agreement must be supported by consideration on both sides. Each party to the agreement
must give or promise something and receive something or a promise in return. Consideration is
the price for which the promise of the other is sought. However, this price need not be in terms of
money. In case the promise is not supported by consideration, the promise will be nudum pactum
(a bare promise) and is not enforceable at law.

Moreover, the consideration must be real and lawful.

6. Lawful object

The object of the agreement must be lawful and not one which the law disapproves.

7. Agreements not declared illegal or void

There are certain agreements which have been expressly declared illegal or void by the law. In
such cases, even if the agreement possesses all the elements of a valid agreement, the agreement
will not be enforceable at law.

8. Certainty of meaning

The meaning of the agreement must be certain or capable of being made certain otherwise the
agreement will not be enforceable at law. For instance, A agrees to sell a mobile to B for
Rs.5000.

There is nothing whatsoever to show what type of mobile was intended. The agreement is not
enforceable for want of certainty of meaning. If, on the other hand, the special description of the
mobile is expressly stated, say Blackberry mobile Z3 model, the agreement would be enforceable
as there is no uncertainty as to its meaning.

9. Possibility of performance
The terms of the agreement should be capable of performance. An agreement to do an act
impossible in itself cannot be enforced. For instance, A agrees with B to discover treasure by
magic. The agreement cannot be enforced.

10. Necessary legal formalities

A contract may be oral or in writing. If, however, a particular type of contract is required by law
to be in writing, it must comply with the necessary formalities as to writing, registration and
attestation, if necessary. If these legal formalities are not carried out, then the contract is not
enforceable at law

Q. Discuss the competency of parties to a contract.

The rule of law which requires the assent of the parties to a contract, assumes “that such
assenting parties shall be competent to contract; and accordingly, in order to there being a
valid contract, a capacity to contract is absolutely necessary”. In India, the law regarding
contracts is majorly the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Therein, capacity is dealt with in
Section 11 of the Act.

COMPETENCY OF PARTIES

Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to
which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any
law to which he is subject.

Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, any person is competent to contract are as follows.

● A person who attained the age of majority and is not a minor.

● A person of sound mind.
● A person who has not been disqualified by law or declared as insolvent/bankrupt

PERSONS NOT COMPETENT TO A CONTRACT

If a person falls in any of the following categories, he/she will be declared as an incompetent
party to a contract.

1. Minors
2. Persons of unsound mind
3. Persons disqualified by law
Q. Minors as per Indian Contracts Act and legal implications.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. S.3 of the Indian Majority Act,
1875 provides about the age of majority. It states that a person is deemed to have attained the age
of majority when he completes that age of 18 years, except in case of a person of whose person
or property a guardian has been appointed by the court, in which case the age of majority is 21
years.

Nature of a minor’s agreement

As stated above a minor is not competent to contract. The question that arises in case of an
agreement by a minor is, whether the agreement is void or voidable? S. 10 mandates that the
agreement shall be between parties competent to contract. Section 11 indicates that the minor is
incapable of entering into a contract. But neither section provides as to the effect of agreement
entered into by a minor. This led to a controversy

Cases

1. Mohoribibi v. Dharmadas Ghose

● Facts: A minor mortgaged his properties in favour of plaintiff, a money lender to secure
the loan of Rs. 20,000/-, after some money was advanced. The Plaintiff came to know
about the infancy. He filed a suit to repudiate the contract and recover the money
advanced
● Held: Minor not liable because Minor’s agreement is void ab initio.
● Reasons:
i. The question whether a contract is void or voidable presupposes the existence of a
contract within the meaning of the Act, and cannot arise in the case of an infant (minor).

ii. General presumption that every man is the best judge of his own interests is suspended
in the case of minors.
Legal Position of a Minor in Contractual Obligations

The law generally aims to protect minors from the consequences of contractual obligations,
recognizing their lack of legal capacity to make binding agreements. This principle is enshrined
in several doctrines, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations. The following is an
in-depth discussion of the various aspects of a minor's contractual liability, including exceptions
and key doctrines.

No Estoppel Against Minors

When a minor enters into a contract by misrepresenting their age, the law does not hold them
accountable through the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel, which prevents a person from denying or
contradicting their prior statements if others have relied upon them, cannot be applied against
minors. This principle is rooted in the policy of law to safeguard minors from contractual
liability, even when they act dishonestly or fraudulently. Applying estoppel to minors would
defeat the very objective of their legal protection.

This doctrine was exemplified in Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, where a minor secured a
loan by falsely claiming to be of age. Despite the misrepresentation, the Privy Council ruled that
the doctrine of estoppel did not apply. Furthermore, since the lender was aware of the minor's
age, the minor’s false statement did not mislead the lender, and the question of estoppel was
deemed irrelevant.

Liability for Torts Based on Contracts

Minors are not liable for breaches of contract because their agreements are void ab initio.
However, when a minor commits a tort, they are held liable just as an adult would be. The
complexity arises when an act constitutes both a tort and a breach of contract. In such cases, the
minor cannot be held liable for the tort if it is connected to the contract. This principle ensures
that an invalid contract cannot be indirectly enforced under the guise of a tort action.
For example, in Johnson v. Pye, a minor falsely claimed to be of age and borrowed money. The
court ruled that the minor could not be made to repay the loan under an action for deceit. This
decision reaffirmed that a contract cannot be transformed into a tort to impose liability on a
minor.

Doctrine of Equitable Restitution

Although contracts with minors are void, courts recognize the doctrine of equitable restitution to
prevent minors from unjust enrichment. If a minor acquires property or goods by misrepresenting
their age, they can be compelled to return the goods, but only if they are still in their possession.
Once the goods are sold or money is spent, restitution is no longer possible.

In Leslie v. Sheill, a minor obtained a loan through fraud and used the money for personal
purposes. The court ruled that enforcing repayment would amount to upholding a void contract.
Thus, restitution is limited to cases where the original goods or property can be traced.

Indian Law on Compensation by a Minor

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not provide for compensation by minors under void
agreements. Sections 64 and 65 of the Act, which govern restitution, apply only to competent
contracting parties. This was established in Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, where the court
held that these provisions did not apply to minors.

Similarly, under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, relief may be granted for the cancellation of
contracts involving minors. However, this relief is typically conditional upon the minor restoring
any benefits received. For example, in Khangul v. Lakhasingh, a minor fraudulently concealed
his age to sell land and received consideration. The court denied possession of the land but
directed the minor to return the consideration received, recognizing that restitution was necessary
to avoid unjust enrichment.
Restoration of Benefits

When a minor seeks the cancellation of a contract, courts may impose conditions requiring the
minor to restore benefits obtained under the agreement. Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act
explicitly allows courts to require such restoration, provided it is limited to the extent of the
minor’s enrichment.

Beneficial Contracts and Enforceability

While a minor’s agreements are void, contracts that solely benefit the minor without imposing
obligations are enforceable. These include cases where a minor enforces recovery of possession
or benefits under agreements entered into by others on their behalf. However, service contracts
involving minors are generally void, as are contracts for immovable property executed by
guardians on behalf of minors, even if they are beneficial.

No Ratification of Void Contracts

A minor cannot ratify a void contract upon attaining majority. This principle is based on the fact
that ratification relates back to the original date of the contract, which was void from its
inception. Therefore, any attempt to validate a void contract through subsequent actions, such as
executing a fresh agreement, also fails. In Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer, a minor executed a
promissory note and later reaffirmed it after attaining majority. The court held that the fresh note
was invalid as it was based on consideration that was not legally recognized.

Liability for Necessaries

Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act provides for the reimbursement of necessaries supplied to
minors. While the minor’s property may be liable for such expenses, the minor themselves are
not personally liable. The term "necessaries" encompasses more than just basic needs like food
and clothing; it includes goods and services suitable to the minor’s social status and actual
requirements at the time.

Judicial interpretation has expanded the scope of necessaries to include education expenses,
marriage costs, funeral expenses for family members, and essential repairs to property. For
instance, cash provided to a minor for urgent repairs to their house or for payment of government
revenue has been recognized as necessary.

Q. Discuss the competency to contract by persons of unsound mind.

A person while making a contract should be of a sound mind otherwise the contract will have no
validity in the eyes of law. The definition of a person of sound mind has been amply clarified by
Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act which reads a person is said to 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 judgment as to its effect upon his interests. Thus soundness of mind of
a person depends on two facts:

​ i) his capacity to understand the terms of the contract, and

​ ii) his ability to form a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

If a person is incapable of both, he suffers from unsoundness of mind. Idiots, lunatics and
drunken persons are examples of those having an unsound mind. Law of Contract Section 12
further states that a person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may
undertake a contract when he is of sound mind. A person, who is usually of sound mind, but
occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind.

Lunatics:

A lunatic is a person who is mentally deranged due to some mental strain or other personal
experience. However, he has some intervals of sound mind. He is not liable for contracts entered
into while he is of unsound mind. However, as regards contracts entered into during lucid
intervals, he is bound. His position in this regard is identical with that of a minor.
Idiots

An idiot is a person who is permanently of unsound mind. Idiocy is a congenital defect. Such a
person has no lucid intervals. He cannot make a valid contract.

Drunken Persons

Drunkenness is on the same footing as lunacy. A contract by a drunken person is altogether void.

A contract with a person of unsound mind is subject to the same exceptions as the contract with a
minor is. Thus a person of unsound mind
(i) May enforce a contract for his benefit, and
(ii) His properties, if any, shall be attachable for realization of money due against him for supply
of necessaries to him or to any of his dependents.

Q. Discuss the competency to contract by persons disqualified by law.

Alien enemies

All persons other than Indian citizens are aliens. When the sovereign or the state of that alien is
at peace with India, he is an alien friend. Contrary to it, he will be an alien enemy. In case of
outbreak of war between India and the alien country, the following rules apply for the
performance of agreements:-

i. No contract can be made with an alien enemy during the subsistence of war, except with
the prior approval of the Government of India.
ii. Performance of the contracts made before the outbreak of war will be suspended during
the course of war. They can be performed only when the war is over. Even then, the
government can put restrictions on the performance of such contracts, if it considers them
necessary for national interest.

Insolvents

In simple words, the insolvent is disqualified from entering into a contract until he is discharged
by the court of law.
Foreign Sovereigns and Diplomats:

Under international law and Indian law, foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, and other diplomatic
personnel enjoy certain immunities. They cannot be sued in Indian courts and are, thus, unable to
enter into contracts that can be enforced against them, unless they waive their immunity.

Convicts

A person who has been convicted of a crime and is serving a sentence in prison may be
disqualified from entering into contracts for the duration of their sentence, depending on the
legal provisions governing their status.

Q. Discuss Free Consent under Indian Contracts Act, 1872

According to section 10 of the contract act, a contract is valid if it was entered into by free
consent of the parties.

Section 14 of the contract act defined free consent as consent not given under coercion, undue
influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake.

The general averment that consent was not free is not maintainable. It must be proved that
consent was vitiated by any of the 5 elements mentioned in section 14. If consent manifests any
of such elements then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was
obtained.

Coercion (Section 15)

This section defines coercion as committing any act forbidden by The Indian Penal Code 1860 or
unlawful detaining of property, or threatening to commit these acts. Coercion includes all such
acts which are forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. It also includes threatening to commit any act
forbidden by the code. Further section 15 says that it also includes unlawfully detaining the
property of any person or threatening to detain such property, which will harm the other person.
Such an act would amount to coercion only when the act has been committed with the intention
to enter into an agreement.
Undue influence (section 16)

According to section 16 if consent has been obtained by a person who is in a dominant position
compared to the other person, then it is undue influence. Thus one person must be able to
dominate the will of the other person for exercise of undue influence. Eg an employer-employee
relationship, Doctor-patient relationship.

16(2) makes it clear that dominant position includes situations where a person holds real
authority or apparent authority i.e. authority which is not expressly stated but can be easily
inferred by a reasonable man eg. A principal has an apparent authority over his agent. Further
persons in a fiduciary relationship, are also able to control the will of the other. (eg.doctor-patient
relationship, Advocate-client relationship). Fiduciary relationships are those in which one person
puts his confidence in the other person (who is in a dominating position).

16(3) says that if a contract is entered into between 2 parties and one of them is in a position to
dominate the will of the other, and if he uses it to enter into the contract, then the contract will be
unconscionable.

Further it says that the person who has the ability to dominate the will of the other party has to
prove that the contract was not entered into under the influence of a dominant position. Thus it
talks about on whom the burden of proof shall fall.

Fraud (section 17)

It means an act done to deceive the other person whether to get any advantage from the other
person or because of ill-will or enmity towards the other party.

Section 17(1) states that fraud means any false factual statement and the person making it knows
it is false. Thus deliberately making a false statement.
Section 17(2) Fraud also includes concealing any fact by the party who is aware of the existence
of such fact. Active concealment is different from mere silence when an effort is made to ensure
that the other party is not able to know the truth.

Section 17(3) A promise made without the intention to perform it. Thus making false or empty
promises.

Section 17(4) and (5) any other act done to deceive the other party and which the law
specifically categorizes as fraudulent.

The above acts will fall under the definition of Fraud if they are done intentionally. If the
intention is missing, then it would be Misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation (section 18)

When false statements are innocently made without the intention to deceive, then it amounts to
misrepresentation. In misrepresentation, the person making the statement is innocent and has no
intention to deceive the other party.

Mistake

Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines mistakes. The topic matter of fact is essential
to any contract. When both the parties are at an error on the topic matter of fact, such a contract
is void.

Mistakes are unpardonable under the following circumstances:

● Ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse. No party can claim that he was unaware of
the law.
● The second scenario happens when two parties misunderstand one another. These
mistakes can be unilateral or bilateral.
Q. What is Consideration? What are the elements of a lawful consideration?

The meaning of consideration can be derived from the Latin term “quid pro quo,” which means
“something for something.” It states that each party entering into a contract should offer
something to the other party.

Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consideration as “when at the desire of the
promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains
from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or
promise is called a consideration for the promise”. The definition requires the following
essentials to be satisfied in order there is valid consideration-

1. Consideration to be given ‘at the desire of the promisor’.

2. Consideration to be given ‘by the promisee or any other person’.
3. Consideration may be past, present, future, in so far as the definition says that the
promise:
​ (i) Has done or abstained from doing, or
​ (ii) Does or abstains from doing, or
​ (iii) Promises to do or to abstain from doing something.
4. There should be some act, abstinence or promise by the promise, which constitutes
consideration for the promise.

1. Consideration must be at the desire of the promisor.

Consideration must have been given at the desire of the promisor, rather than voluntarily or at the
instance of some third party. Any act or abstinence done voluntarily or without the desire of the
promissor is not a valid consideration in the eyes of the law.

2. Consideration by promisee or any other person

According to Indian law consideration may be given by the promisee or any other person. In
India there is a possibility that the consideration for the promise may move not from the
promisee but a third person, who is not a party to the contract. Thus, as long as there is a
consideration for a promise, it is immaterial who has furnished it. It may move from the promise
or from any other person. This transfer of obligation to pay from one person to another does not
have any effect on the validity of the consideration involved in the promise, as long as there is no
objection from the promissor.

The consideration must not be unlawful

It’s obvious that any act, abstinence or promise made that is considered illegal in the eyes of the
law is not a valid consideration. Also, if there is an involvement of any injury to a person or
property of another person or is immoral in nature, it makes the consideration invalid under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. Such considerations make the contract void.

The consideration must not be physically impossible

A consideration that is not physically possible to be performed or carried out is considered

invalid. A decision should always be something that is capable of being performed or carried out.

The consideration may not be adequate

When two parties enter into a contract, they agree on something of value (consideration) to
exchange. The amount or value of the consideration is decided by the parties themselves. The
court does not interfere or question whether the consideration is fair or adequate.

However, if the consideration seems inadequate, the court may use this fact to check whether
both parties freely agreed to the contract. In other words, the court might look into whether one
party was pressured or misled into accepting the contract. As long as both parties agreed to the
terms voluntarily, the contract remains valid, even if the consideration seems small or unequal.

Q. Consideration may be past, executed or executory. Discuss.

Indian Contract Act recognizes three kinds of consideration, viz., Past, Executed and Executory.
It says that when at the desire of the promisor, the promise and the other person:

a. Has done or abstained from doing, ( the consideration is past)

b. Does or abstains from doing, ( the consideration is executed or present)
c. Promises to do or to abstain from doing, ( the consideration is Executory or future)
Past Consideration

Past Consideration means that the consideration for any promise was given earlier and the
promise is made thereafter. Unlike present or future consideration, past consideration occurs
prior to the formation of the contract. A helps B extinguish a fire on B’s property at B’s request.
Later, B promises to pay A for the assistance. This promise is enforceable as the act was
performed at B’s request, even though it occurred in the past.

1. The act must be done at the desire of the promissor, be it explicit or implied.
2. The promisor must make a subsequent promise to compensate for the past act. This
creates the binding obligation.
3. The act or abstention forming the consideration must be lawful. Illegal or immoral acts
cannot constitute valid consideration.
4. Both parties must have the intention to create a legal obligation based on the promise.

Executed Consideration

Under executed consideration, the promises and obligations made by the parties in the contract
are already fulfilled or completed. It is also known as present consideration, as the concerned
parties have successfully completed their part of the contract. Executed consideration occurs in
cases where one party performs their obligation upfront, and the other party’s promise becomes
enforceable immediately upon completion of the act. For example: A promises to pay B $50 if B
finds A’s lost wallet. Once B finds and returns the wallet, the consideration becomes executed,
and A is bound to pay B $50.

1. The act constituting the consideration is performed before or at the time of the promise
being enforced.
2. The promise becomes binding as soon as the consideration is executed.
3. Executed consideration is often associated with unilateral contracts, where one party
performs the required act, and the other party is bound to fulfill their promise in response.

Executory Consideration
Executory consideration refers to a situation where both parties to a contract make promises to
perform their obligations in the future. It is a type of consideration that remains incomplete at the
time of the agreement, as the obligations are yet to be carried out.

For example: A agrees to sell his car to B for $10,000, and both parties agree the transaction will
occur in a week. The consideration on both sides is executory until the car is delivered and
payment is made.

In executory consideration, the agreement is based on a mutual exchange of promises, where the
performance of obligations by both parties is deferred to a later time. This is common in bilateral
contracts, where both parties undertake reciprocal obligations.

1. Executory consideration arises from a promise that is yet to be fulfilled.

2. Both parties have obligations to be performed in the future.
3. Even though performance is pending, the contract is enforceable from the moment the
promises are exchanged.

Q. What agreements are considered as void agreements?

A void agreement under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is a contract that is not legally
enforceable right from the outset. In other words, a void agreement is a contract that is deemed
to be null and void from the very beginning, and it has no legal effect whatsoever.

According to Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, a void agreement is an agreement that is
not enforceable by law. A void agreement is not binding on any party to the contract, and no
legal action can be taken to enforce it. It is as if the contract never existed in the first place.

1. AGREEMENTS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION (SECTION 25)

According to sec 25 of the Indian contract act, an Agreement without consideration is void,
unless it is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred
by limitation law or it is in writing and registered.

2. AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF MARRIAGE (SECTION 26)

 Under section 26 of the Indian contract act, agreements which are made in order to restrain
someone from marrying other than a minor are not valid, i.e., void. The main idea which made
this section was that marrying someone of their own choice is a basic right of every individual
and it should not be snatched away. Therefore, any agreement which prohibits someone from
marrying another person of his own choice will come under the restraint of marriage.

3. AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE (SECTION 27)

Under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract between two persons shall not bound a
person from not practicing or starting his own trade or profession for some consideration.
Therefore, a person restraining someone to practice a trade or profession for his own benefit, or
restraining him to trade in a particular way for his own benefit will come under restraint of
trade.

Conditions that make restraint of trade valid:

There are certain conditions that make a restraint on trade during a sale of goodwill valid, these
are:

1. The seller can be restrained only from carrying out a similar business.

2. The restraint can be applied only to certain local limits.

3. The limits/restraint should appear to be reasonable.

4. AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (SECTION 28)

Under section 28 of the Indian contract act, agreements that restrain either one or both of the
parties from going to the courts are not valid or void. When a contract debars a party to the
contract from going to the appropriate courts or tribunals or which limits the time to approach a
court is void and it comes under agreements in restraint of legal proceedings.

5. WAGERING AGREEMENTS UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT (SECTION 30)

When two parties agree and enter into a condition that one party will receive money
from the other party on the happening of future uncertain events, the other party will
receive the money from the first party on the unhappening of future uncertain events.
 This kind of agreement is a wagering agreement.

In a wagering agreement, there should be shared chances of profit and loss. Wagering
deals are usually void.

Wager means bet. It’s a chance game where the chance to win or lose is unknown. The
probability of winning or losing depends solely on an unpredictable occurrence.

Example: B and C agree with each other that it will rain on Saturday. B will pay C Rs
200 if it rains on Saturday and c will pay B if it does not rain on Saturday. This
agreement between B and C is a wagering agreement and it is void.

Q. What is ‘unlawful object and consideration’?

For legitimate contract considerations and objects should be lawful. Object means the aim.
Consideration means the worth of the promise.
Section 23 of the Act states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-
-it is forbidden by law; or
-is of such nature that, if permitted, it might defeat the provisions of any law; or
-is fraudulent; or
-involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or;
-the Court regards it as immoral, or against public policy.
Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Unlawful Consideration: When the benefit or promise exchanged under a contract involves
illegal activities, fraud, harm, immorality, or actions prohibited by law.

Unlawful Object: When the purpose or intent behind forming the contract is illegal, immoral, or
against public policy.

1. Forbidden by Law

Where the object or the consideration of an agreement is that the performance of an act which is
forbidden by law, the agreement is void. Acts or undertakings forbidden by law are those
punishable under any statute also as those prohibited (expressly or implicitly) by special
legislation of Parliament and state legislatures is going to be null and void whether such
prohibition is expressed or implied.

2. Defeat the purpose of Provisions of any Law

Though the thing or consideration for the agreement, sometimes indirectly forbidden by law,
they’re still forbidden if nature defeats the aim of the provision of law. Agreement with such an
object or consideration is void. Where a legislative enactment provides a penalty for an act or
promise, the performance of such an act or promise would amount to the defeat of that
enactment, because it is implicit that the statute intends to forbid that act.

3. Fraudulent Consideration or Object

Contracts formed with the intent to deceive or commit fraud are inherently unlawful. Fraudulent
intent may involve concealing material facts, making false statements, or engaging in deceptive
practices to secure an agreement. Such contracts are void because they undermine the trust and
fairness that form the foundation of contractual relationships.

4. Injury to Person or Property

Contracts that result in harm to an individual’s physical well-being, liberty, or property are
unlawful. This category addresses agreements that encourage acts of violence, damage, or harm
to others. Such contracts are considered void because they conflict with the fundamental legal
principles of protecting individual rights and property.