Legality Of Object & Consideration

When the object or consideration of an agreement is opposed to public policy, the agreement is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally binding or enforceable. Public policy refers to the principles and standards that are considered to be in the best interest of society as a whole. If an agreement goes against these principles, it is deemed to be against public policy and therefore void.

An agreement is considered void if its object or consideration is unlawful. This means that the agreement has no legal effect and cannot be enforced by either party. Void agreements are essentially invalid from the beginning and are treated as if they never existed.

The agreement is void as it interferes with the administration of justice and is opposed to public policy. Agreements that involve giving false evidence in a court of law are considered illegal and against the principles of justice. Such agreements undermine the integrity of the legal system and are therefore not recognized or enforceable by courts.

An agreement to do an illegal act, such as sharing the earnings of a smuggling business, is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally binding and has no legal effect. The law does not recognize or enforce agreements that involve illegal activities. Therefore, any agreement made with the intention of committing an illegal act is considered void from the beginning.

When the object or consideration of an agreement is considered immoral, the agreement is void. This means that the agreement is considered invalid and has no legal effect. Immoral objects or considerations are those that are against public policy or involve illegal activities. Therefore, any agreement with such a purpose is not recognized by the law and cannot be enforced.

All of the given agreements fall in the category of agreements opposed to public policy. Agreements to defraud creditors involve intentionally deceiving creditors to avoid paying debts, which is against the principles of fairness and honesty. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings aim to prevent individuals from seeking legal remedies, undermining the justice system. Agreements in restraint of trade restrict individuals from freely engaging in business activities, which goes against the principles of free competition and economic growth. Therefore, all these agreements are considered contrary to public policy.

An illegal agreement is considered void because it violates the law and is therefore unenforceable. This means that the agreement has no legal effect and cannot be upheld in a court of law. Void agreements are considered null and void from the beginning, as if they never existed.

An agreement opposed to public policy is considered void. This means that it is not legally enforceable and has no legal effect. Such agreements are against the principles and interests of the public and are therefore deemed invalid by the courts.

When an agreement's consideration is unlawful, it means that the promise or act exchanged between the parties is illegal or against public policy. In such cases, the agreement is considered void, meaning it has no legal effect and is unenforceable. This is because the law does not recognize or support agreements that involve illegal activities or go against public interest. Therefore, the correct answer is "Void."

The object or consideration of an agreement is considered unlawful in all of the above cases. If the object or consideration is forbidden by law, it means that it is prohibited by the legal system and therefore cannot be a valid part of the agreement. If the object or consideration is fraudulent, it means that it involves deceit or dishonesty, which is also unlawful. Similarly, if the object or consideration is immoral, it goes against accepted moral standards and is therefore considered unlawful.

This agreement is void because it involves an illegal act. Surety for a criminal case implies supporting someone who is involved in a crime, which goes against the law. Any agreement that involves illegal activities or is against public policy is considered void and unenforceable by the court.

An agreement with lawful object but for an unlawful consideration is considered void. This means that the agreement is completely unenforceable and has no legal effect. Both parties are not bound by the terms of the agreement, and any actions taken based on it would not be legally recognized.

The agreement is considered void because it involves an illegal act, which is the act of killing another person. Any agreement that involves an illegal activity is not enforceable by law and is therefore void.

In this case, the statement is saying that if a collateral transaction is connected to an illegal agreement, it will still be considered illegal and void, even if the collateral transaction itself is lawful. This means that even if the collateral transaction is legal on its own, its connection to an illegal agreement taints it and makes it unenforceable. Therefore, the correct answer is true.

An agreement for lawful consideration but with an unlawful object is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally enforceable and has no legal effect. It is essentially treated as if it never existed in the eyes of the law.

This answer is correct because for an agreement to be considered a contract, it must have both lawful consideration and a lawful object. Lawful consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between the parties involved, while a lawful object means that the purpose or intention of the agreement must not be illegal. Therefore, the agreement must fulfill both these requirements in order to be considered a contract.

When the object or consideration of an agreement is fraudulent, the agreement is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally binding and has no legal effect. Void agreements are essentially treated as if they never existed in the eyes of the law.

Agreements in restraint of marriage, legal proceedings, and trade have been declared void by the Indian Contract Act. These agreements are against public policy because they restrict individuals' freedom to marry, access legal remedies, and engage in trade. Such restrictions are considered detrimental to the overall welfare and interest of society. Therefore, these agreements not only fall under the category of void agreements but also agreements opposed to public policy.

An agreement forbidden by law is referred to as an illegal agreement. This means that the agreement violates the laws and regulations set by the governing authorities. Such agreements are considered void and unenforceable.

When the object or consideration of an agreement is forbidden by law, the agreement is considered void. This means that the agreement is null and has no legal effect. Void agreements are essentially invalid from the beginning and cannot be enforced by either party.

An agreement to commit a crime or any wrongful act for which a civil suit can be brought is considered void. This means that such an agreement is not legally binding and has no legal effect. It is against the law to enter into an agreement that involves illegal activities or actions that can result in civil liability. Therefore, the correct answer is Void.

The correct answer is "Void being against public policy." This means that an agreement intended to induce a government officer to act corruptly is considered void because it goes against public policy. Public policy aims to promote the common good and prevent actions that are harmful or unethical. Therefore, any agreement that encourages corruption by government officials is not legally enforceable and is considered void.

Contracts to do impossible acts are not covered under the heads of public policy. This means that if a contract involves an act that is impossible to perform, it is not considered legally valid. This is because a contract requires both parties to be able to fulfill their obligations, and if one party is unable to do so due to the impossibility of the act, the contract cannot be enforced. Therefore, contracts to do impossible acts are not recognized by law and are not considered valid.

The agreement is void because it is based on an illegal consideration. The offeror, A, is offering a bribe to B in exchange for securing employment in the Income Tax Department. This is against the law and goes against public policy. Therefore, the agreement is considered void and unenforceable.

The agreement between A, B, and C to carry on fraudulent business and share the profits equally is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally binding and has no legal effect. Void agreements are typically against public policy or involve illegal activities. In this case, the fraudulent nature of the agreement renders it void, as it goes against the principles of honesty and fair dealing in business transactions.

An illegal agreement is void because it is against the law and therefore has no legal effect. A collateral transaction to an illegal agreement, such as borrowing money to carry on an illegal business, would also be void. This is because any transaction that is connected to an illegal agreement is considered illegal itself and cannot be enforced by the courts. Therefore, the correct answer is void.

The given answer states that all of the mentioned types of agreements are considered immoral and therefore void. This means that any agreement that interferes with marital relations, an agreement to marry a woman after the death of her husband or after she seeks divorce, and an agreement with prostitutes are all regarded as immoral and thus cannot be legally enforced.

Contracts to do impossible acts are not covered by heads of public policy. This means that even if an agreement is impossible to perform, it does not necessarily make it void on the grounds of public policy. Public policy typically focuses on agreements that are against the general welfare and well-being of society, such as trading with an enemy or trafficking in public offices. Marriage brokerage contracts may also be considered against public policy depending on the jurisdiction. However, contracts to do impossible acts are not inherently against public policy as they do not involve any moral or societal concerns.

The correct answer is "Both (a) and (b)." In this case, the object or consideration of an agreement is not unlawful if it is not opposed to public policy and does not defeat the provision of any law. This means that as long as the agreement does not go against public interests or violate any legal provisions, it is considered lawful.

The statement is true because illegal agreements are considered void ab initio, meaning they are treated as if they never existed. As a result, the law does not recognize any rights or obligations arising from illegal agreements, and neither party can take legal action to enforce the terms of the agreement.

A champertous agreement refers to an agreement where a third party provides financial assistance to someone in a legal dispute in exchange for a share of the proceeds if the case is successful. In this context, if the agreement is fair and made with a bona fide (genuine) intention of helping the person, it is considered valid. This means that such agreements can be legally enforceable and recognized by the court. Therefore, the statement "A champertous agreement which is fair and made with a bona fide object of assisting a person is valid" is true.

The agreement is void because it involves the exchange of money for the daughter to be given as a concubine. This arrangement is illegal and against public policy as it goes against the principles of consent, dignity, and equality. It is considered morally and legally unacceptable, rendering the agreement null and void.

Contracts to do impossible acts are not covered by heads of public policy. This means that such contracts are not enforceable by law because they involve agreements to perform actions that are impossible to accomplish. The heads of public policy are a set of principles that guide the legal system and determine which contracts are considered valid and enforceable. These principles aim to protect the public interest and ensure fairness and justice in contractual agreements. Since contracts to do impossible acts are inherently unachievable, they are not recognized under the heads of public policy.

All the above agreements are considered void as they are against public policy. An agreement to indemnify a person against the consequences of their criminal act goes against the principles of justice and encourages unlawful behavior. An agreement by a father to transfer the guardianship of his minor son to a third person may not be in the best interest of the child and goes against the welfare of the minor. Lastly, an agreement that restricts the personal liberty of an individual violates their fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore, all these agreements are void as they are contrary to public policy.

The agreement for the procurement of a public recognition such as Param Veer Chakra or any other title for monetary or other consideration is considered to be opposed to public policy. This means that such agreements are not in line with the principles and values that are deemed beneficial for the general public. Engaging in such agreements can be seen as unethical and against the public interest.

The correct answer is "Both (a) and (b)." This means that an agreement to procure the marriage of a person in consideration of money is both called a marriage brokerage contract and against public policy. This implies that such agreements are not valid and enforceable as they go against the principles of public policy.

All of the options mentioned in the question fall under the category of agreements that interfere with the administration of justice and are opposed to public policy. An agreement that obstructs the ordinary course of justice hinders the smooth functioning of the judicial system. An agreement for stifling prosecution implies an attempt to prevent legal action against someone, which can impede the fair administration of justice. A champertous agreement refers to an arrangement where a third party funds a lawsuit in exchange for a share in the proceeds, which can have a malicious intention and disrupt the fairness of the legal process. Therefore, all the options mentioned are agreements that interfere with the administration of justice.

Since the agreement between A and B is illegal and void, A cannot recover rent from B. Illegal agreements are not enforceable by law, and therefore A cannot legally demand rent from B for the use of the house.

An agreement is considered void when its object or consideration is not directly prohibited by law but is of such a nature that if allowed, it would defeat the provisions of any law. In other words, the agreement goes against the fundamental principles of law and is therefore considered null and void.

An agreement to pay the lawyer according to the results of the case is against public policy because it can create a conflict of interest. If a lawyer's payment is contingent on the outcome of the case, they may be tempted to prioritize their own financial gain over the best interests of their client. This arrangement can compromise the lawyer's ethical obligations and the integrity of the legal system. Therefore, it is generally considered against public policy to have such agreements in place.

not-available-via-ai

Statement (a) is correct because an agreement with voters to procure their votes for monetary consideration is against public policy and therefore void. Statement (b) is also correct because an agreement to procure a seat in a college for monetary consideration is also against public policy and void. Statement (c) is incorrect because an agreement by way of wager is not voidable, it is void. Statement (d) is correct because an agreement restricting personal liberty is against public policy and therefore void.

The correct answer is (i) (ii), (iii). The explanation for this answer is that an agreement is considered unlawful if the consideration or object of the agreement is forbidden by law, fraudulent, or immoral. This means that if any of these conditions are present, the agreement would be considered unlawful. The option (i) (ii), (iii) includes all the correct conditions, making it the correct answer.

An agreement is considered to be opposed to public policy when it is either injurious to the welfare of society or tends to prejudice the welfare of society. This means that if an agreement is found to be harmful or detrimental to the well-being of the general public or goes against the provisions of any law, it can be deemed as opposed to public policy.

An agreement of wagering nature does not fall in the category of agreements opposed to public policy. While agreements to commit a crime, restrict personal liberty, and restrain parental rights are all considered against public policy, wagering agreements are not inherently illegal. They involve placing bets or wagers on uncertain events, and while they may be regulated by specific laws, they are not considered against public policy as long as they comply with those regulations.

The given correct answer is "Stifling prosecution." This is because the statement mentioned in the question states that an agreement not to prosecute or withdraw a pending prosecution is void. Therefore, an agreement that aims to prevent or hinder the prosecution of an offender is known as "stifling prosecution." Champerty refers to an agreement where a third party funds a lawsuit in exchange for a share of the proceeds, and none of these options align with the given statement.

An agreement is not considered unlawful when the consideration or object of the agreement is not as per the requirement of the promisee. This means that if the promisee does not receive what they were expecting or what was promised to them, it does not make the agreement unlawful. However, it is important to note that this does not apply to cases where the agreement is opposed to public policy, defeats the provision of any law, or is injurious to another person or their property.

In this scenario, the agreement consists of two parts - one legal and the other illegal. However, it is mentioned that the legal part is separable from the illegal one. This means that the legal part can be separated or detached from the illegal part without affecting its validity. Therefore, the legal part of the agreement is considered valid.

Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act states that an agreement is considered void if it is against public policy or involves unlawful consideration. Therefore, the correct answer is Section 23, as it specifically mentions the voidness of agreements for lawful consideration.

A champertous agreement refers to an agreement where one party provides assistance, whether it be financial or other forms of support, to another person in order to recover property through legal action. Additionally, the agreement stipulates that the proceeds from the litigation will be shared between the parties involved. This practice is generally considered illegal and unethical in most jurisdictions, as it encourages unnecessary litigation and can lead to conflicts of interest.