VOID AGREEMENTS

 ABSTRACT

Illegal or unconstitutional contracts are void. Such agreements are void from the start because they lack the necessary elements for contract formation. Fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or illegality can invalidate such agreements. A void agreement cannot be enforced by any party and cannot be used to recover property or payments. 

KEYWORD 

Void agreement, Indian Contract Act, Null and void, Fraud, Coercion, Misrepresentation, Consideration, Public policy, Voidable contract, Legal consequences

INTRODUCTION

An agreement is the basis of any contractual relationship, and it makes both parties legally obligated to do what they said they would do. But the law doesn't make all agreements binding. Especially void agreements are those that are against the law or against public policy. This means that they can't be enforced from the start. In other words, an agreement is not valid if it is missing the most important parts of a valid contract. The idea of void agreements is an important part of contract law, and anyone who wants to make a legally binding agreement needs to understand it. 

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

To examine the concept of void agreements and their implications under contract law, including the reasons for which contracts may be deemed null and void, the consequences of having a void agreement, and the essential elements required for the formation of a legally binding contract.

HYPOTHESIS 

Contracts that violate the law or public policy are void. No party can enforce such agreements. Fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, and illegality can invalidate agreements. Contract-related property and money are irrecoverable. To avoid the serious consequences of a void agreement, make sure any agreement you enter into is legal and can be executed.

VOID AGGREMENTS 

Void agreements are contracts that can't be enforced by the law because they are against the law or against what the public wants. Such agreements aren't valid from the start, and no one can force anyone else to follow them. Different things could make these agreements invalid, such as fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or being against the law. 

Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 says that a void agreement is one that can't be enforced by law. This definition means that void agreements don't have the key parts that are needed to make a valid contract. So, these agreements are void ab initio, which means they are void from the start, and none of the parties involved can make them work. The Indian Contract Act identifies the following categories of void agreements:

Agreement with nothing in return

 An agreement with nothing in return is null and void. Consideration is the thing of value that each party to a contract gives to the other. In other words, it is the cost of the promise that the other person made. If the promise isn't worth anything, the deal isn't valid.

Agreement to do something that can't be done

An agreement to do something that can't be done is not binding. For instance, if two people agree to fly without any mechanical help, this would be a bad deal.

Agreements that break the law or go against public policy are not valid. For example, a deal to break the law or do something immoral is not binding.

Agreement obtained by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation

 An agreement obtained by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation is void. Fraud refers to the intentional deception of another person for personal gain. Coercion refers to the use of force or threats to obtain the consent of the other party. Misrepresentation is when a material fact is lied about on purpose or by accident.

An agreement that can be broken is not the same as an agreement that can be broken. A voidable agreement is a contract that is valid at first, but one or both parties can get out of it because of a legal flaw or inability. For example, a contract entered into by a minor is voidable at the option of the minor.

The consequences of a void agreement are significant. Since a void agreement is missing the most important parts of a valid contract, none of the parties can use it to get what they want. Moreover, any property transferred under a void agreement cannot be recovered by either party. In addition, any payments made under a void agreement cannot be recovered by the party who made them.

CASE LAW

Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose

One of the most prominent case laws on void agreements is the case of Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. This case, which was decided in 1903 by the Privy Council, established the principle that agreements that are illegal or against public policy are void ab initio and cannot be enforced by either party.

In this case, Dharmodas Ghose had borrowed money from Mohiri Bibee, but the loan agreement was executed in violation of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. When Dharmodas Ghose defaulted on the loan, Mohiri Bibee sought to enforce the agreement in court. However, the court held that the agreement was void and unenforceable due to its illegality, and Mohiri Bibee could not recover the amount she had lent to Dharmodas Ghose.

This case established the principle that a contract that is illegal or against public policy is void from the outset and cannot be enforced by any party. It also highlighted the importance of ensuring that any agreement entered into is valid and enforceable under the law.

Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur

Another case law on void agreements is Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, which was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1954. This case established the principle that an agreement that is void ab initio cannot be ratified, and any subsequent acts performed under such an agreement are also void. In this case, the court held that a contract that violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was void ab initio, and the subsequent acts performed under the agreement, such as the payment of money, were also void and could not be ratified.

These cases highlight the importance of understanding the concept of void agreements and ensuring that any agreement entered into is valid and enforceable under the law. They also demonstrate the severe consequences of entering into an agreement that is illegal or against public policy.

CONCLUSION

Void agreements are contracts that don't have the most important parts that are needed to make a valid agreement. People think that these kinds of agreements are illegal or against public policy, so they can't be kept. Different things could make these agreements invalid, such as fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or being against the law. A void agreement can't be enforced by any of the parties, and any property that was given or money that was paid out because of the agreement can't be taken back. So, it is very important to make sure that any agreement you make is legal and can be enforced. If there is no valid agreement, both sides should talk to a lawyer to make sure their rights are protected. Understanding the idea of void agreements is important for anyone who wants to sign a legally binding contract and avoid the problems that come with contracts that can't be enforced.