Agreement The Consideration Or Object Of Which Is Partly Unlawful

Section 232 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Act”) lists three points, namely the consideration for the agreement, the purpose of the agreement and the agreement itself. § 23 restricts a person`s freedom to conclude contracts and subjects that person`s rights to the overlying considerations of public order and the others referred to therein.3§ 23 also applies to the other sections of the Act, namely § 264, 275, 286 and 307. “If the thing provided for in itself is contrary to the law, the act by which the execution of the unlawful act is ordered must be declared in itself invalid: pactis privatorum juri publico non derogatur. 8 3. In Re: K.L. Gauba (23.04.1954 – BOMHC) [AIR 1954 Bom 478]. paragraph 11: “. The freedom of the citizen, as well as the freedom of the lawyer to enter into a contract, are always governed by considerations of public order, as discussed on page 23 of the Indian Contract Act. That freedom is also subject to the other considerations on p. 23. An agreement can consist of promises that are legal and illegal.

If the legal promise can be separated from the illegal promise, the legal promise can be kept. In such a case, the illegal part is not valid. If the legal promise cannot be separated from the illegal promise, it would be void. If there is a single consideration for one or more illicit assets, the agreement is null and void. Therefore, if an agreement contains several different promises to do legal and other illegal things and the legal part cannot be separated from the illegal part (i.e. the consideration for different promises is a single sum of money), the entire agreement is illegal and not avoisyé. In addition, if the transactions resulting from an illegal act are in such a way that, if separated from the illegal party, they would be considered a valid agreement, these transactions have value in the eyes of the law, regardless of the illegality of the agreement. Any agreement involving or involving a violation of persons or other property is considered illegal and, therefore, annigable.

24. Agreements are when considerations and objects are illegal under Part Three. Alice Mary Hill vs. William Clark (1905) 27 Every 266 – In this case, A promises to pay a fixed amount of money per month to a married woman if she is adulterous with the Promisor, which is illegal, and for the maintenance of her home, which is legal, the whole agreement was canceled, because it was impossible to have the only lump sum between the legal object and the illegal object. The word “object” used in Section 23 means “object” and does not claim to have a meaning in the same sense as “reflection”. For this reason, even if the consideration of a contract may be legal and real, it will not prevent the treaty from being illegal if the object (of the object) of the treaty is illegal. § 23, since the section does not orient itself towards the ground, limits the courts to the subject matter of the agreement or the transaction itself and not to the reasons arising therefrom. “The word `immoral` is a very complete word. Normally, he takes all aspects of personal behavior that deviate from the standard norms of life It can also be said that what is repugnant to the good conscience is immoral. Its different content depends on the time, place and stage of civilization of a given society. In short, no universal norm can be established, and any law based on such a fluid concept thwarts its own purpose. The provisions of article 23 of the Contracts Act indicate the legislative intention to give it limited meaning.

Its confrontation with an equally illusory concept, public order, indicates that it is used in a limited sense; Otherwise, there would be overlaps between the two concepts. What is immoral may be, in the broad sense, contrary to public order, includes political, social and economic objections. . . .