Consideration And Object Of An Agreement Are Unlawful If

For example, in one person borrowed Rs.100, and in recital, a loan in favor of the lender, also executed by the applicant in this case. The person in the loan promised to work for him for two years, without him agreeing to pay a very exorbitant interest rate and the amount of capital at the same time. It was found that the contract was null and void, because the promise contained in the loan would amount to slavery on the part of the defendant, damaging both to a person and illegally. Although the purpose or idea of an agreement, sometimes not directly prohibited by law, they are always prohibited when it comes to the nature of destroying the purpose of the provision of the law. The authorization of such an object or such consideration is void. If a decree-law provides for a sanction for an act or promise, the execution of such an act or promise would amount to the defeat of that law, because it is implied that the law intends to prohibit that act. “The word “immoral” is a very complete word. Normally it takes in every aspect of personal behavior deviating from standard standards of life It can also be said that what is repugnant to good conscience is immoral. Its different content depends on the time, place and civilization of a given society.

In short, no universal standard can be defined and any law based on such a fluid concept serves no purpose. The provisions of section 23 of the Contracts Act indicate the legislative intent to give it limited meaning. Its confrontation with an equally illusory concept, public order, indicates that it is being used in a limited sense; Otherwise, it would lead to overlaps between the two concepts. What may be, in the broadest sense, contrary to public policy, covers political, social and economic objections. Therefore, the cases decided and the authors of text books limited them to sexual immorality for any justification. The other restriction imposed on the word by the statue, namely “the courts are immoral,” suggests that it is also a branch of the common law such as the doctrine of public order and should therefore be limited to principles recognized and regulated by the courts. Precedents limit this term to sexual immorality and no case has been brought to the attention of any head other than sexual immorality. Under these conditions, we cannot involve a new head to put bets in its fold.¬†On the basis of the above, it is easy to understand that the scope and scope of Section 23 are important and that, therefore, the applicability of its provisions is subject to careful consideration by the Tribunal of the recital and purpose of an agreement and the agreement itself. Therefore, in order to introduce a case within the scope of Section 23, it must be shown that the purpose of the agreement or the review of the agreement or agreement itself is illegal.

Therefore, the Indian Contract Act provides us with the parameters that constitute such a legitimate consideration and the purpose of the contract. In each of these cases, the review or the purpose of an agreement is considered illegal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.