There are at least 3 possible results of illegal agreements. I think the law has long provided that where an act is manifestly illegal or the offender knows it is illegal, since it is either a civil offence, he cannot bring an action by contributing, nor can he compensate the liability that ensues. This provision does not apply to the ground or grounds that might apply to parties entering into illegal contracts. In the case of Neminath v. Jamboorao, the court put forward three fundamental principles on which Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act is based. This was done in order to create a clearer perspective for future references. First, a contract is considered null and void if the purpose is to sponsor an illegal act. Second, an agreement is annulled if it is prohibited either explicitly or tacitly by a law in force at the time the contract was drafted. Finally, a contract is non-agreeable if its execution cannot be carried out without the disobedience of an existing law.

These principles give a concise account of the purpose and objectives and content of Section 23. Under Section 2 (g) of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a non-applicable agreement is considered non-applicable. For example, a minor`s agreement was cancelled. Section 24-30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, explicitly mentions undedified agreements. These agreements include an agreement without consideration, an agreement limiting marriage and a trade restriction agreement. The agreement was illegal and the period of arrest and imprisonment was the main objective of the agreement. This was a serious illegality: it was a conspiracy to rip off an insurance company. The applicant was not allowed to recover the agreed amount. Contracts called “zero-hours contracts” are generally agreements in which an individual or another company agrees to be paid for the hours actually worked, and what makes an agreement illegal? These types of contracts are defined in Section 2 (i) of the Indian Contracts Act: “An agreement applicable to the choice of one or more parties, but not to the choice of the others, is a non-negotiable contract.” Therefore, an unsigned contract would be a contract that can be avoided by one of the parties after its election.

If such a party does not avoid the contract, the contract remains valid, but if it prefers to circumvent the contract, the contract becomes void. Zero-hours contracts are not employment contracts. These are consulting agreements. There is no working relationship. 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.

By default, these are valid and legitimate agreements under the principles of contractual freedom. Family law The defence of illegality has also been applied in family law with respect to post-marriage agreements. For example, in In re Marriage of Mehren – Dargan (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1167, the man and woman entered into a post-marital arrangement whereby the wife`s husband gave full interest to the common ownership of the parties if he were to use illegal and illicit drugs. The Court of Appeal found that the agreement was unlawful because the husband refrained from committing or forenouncing an offence or unlawful act or prevented the improper deceit or violation of the promised or a third party.