AN ANALYSIS OF

VOID AGREEMENTS
Under Indian Contracts Act, 1872

Name:- Rashmi Rekha Bora

st
1 Semester, Section- B, Roll- 42

MIES R.M. Law College

Sahebpara, Sonarpur, Kolkata-700150
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction.....................................
1
2. Concept of Agreement....................
2
3. Void Agreement and
voidable contract............................. 4
4. Nature of Void
agreement........................................ 6
5. Void Agreements under
Indian Contract Act......................... 7
6. Role of Judiciary.............................
10
7. Conclusion......................................
16
8. Bibliography...................................
17
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Presentation, inspiration and motivation have always played a key role in the
success of any venture.

I am immensely obligated and feel to acknowledge my indebtedness and deep

sense of recognition to my guide Prof. Soumik Ash, whose valuable guidance and
kind supervision given to me throughout this project shaped the present work at its
show.

I also express my sincere thanks and gratitude to our respected Principal of MIES
R.M. Law College, Mr Ullash Kr. Saha, to encourage me to the highest peak and
provide me the golden opportunity to prepare the project on the topic “An Analysis
of Void Agreements”

Rashmi Rekha Bora

Introduction:
A contract means an agreement which is enforceable by law. An agreement
consists of reciprocal promises between two parties. In case of a contract, each
party is legally bound by the promise made by him. In India, the Law governing
contracts is the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It came into force on September 1,
1872 and is extended to the whole of India except to the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.

The Act has 238 sections altogether. Sections 1 to 75 came into force on
September 1, 1872.

The term 'Contract' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. It defines the Contract as an agreement enforceable by law.
An agreement cannot become a contract unless it can be enforceable by law. To
be enforceable by law, a contract must contain all the essential elements of a
valid contract as defined in Section 10.

According to Section 10, "All agreements are contracts, if they are made by the
free consent of the parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration,
with a lawful object and are not expressly declared by the Act to be void.

Essential Elements of a Contract as defined in Section 10 of the Indian Contract

Act 1872 are as follows-

1. Agreement - Offer and Acceptance

2. Legal purpose
3. Lawful Consideration
4. Capacity to contract
5. Consent to contract
6. Lawful object
7. Certainity
8. Possibility of Performance
9. Not expressly declared void
10. Legal formalities like Writing, Registration etc.

All the above ingredients must be satisfied in every valid contract. It can be
noted that all contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.

1
Concept of Agreement
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines the term “Contract” under its section 2
(h) as “An agreement enforceable by law”. In other words, we can say that a
contract is anything that is an agreement and enforceable by the law of the land.

This definition has two major elements in it viz – “agreement” and “enforceable
by law”. So in order to understand a contract in the light of The Indian Contract
Act, 1872 we need to define and explain these two pivots in the definition of a
contract.

Agreement

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines “Agreement” in its section 2 (e).
“Agreement” has been defined as “every promise and every set of promises,
forming the consideration for each other”.

An analysis of the definition reveals that the term “Promise” has not been
defined and hence, may lead to ambiguity. To eliminate this problem, the term
promise has been further defined under section 2(b) as “when the person to
whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be
accepted. Proposal when accepted, becomes a promise”.

As per the definition, an agreement is an accepted promise, accepted by all the

parties involved in the agreement or affected by it. This definition thus
introduces a flow chart or a sequence of steps that need to be triggered in order
to establish or draft a contract. The steps may be described as under:

 The definition requires a person to whom a certain proposal is made.

 The person (parties) in step one have to be in a position to fully
understand all the aspects of a proposal.
 “signifies his assent thereto” – means that the person in point one accepts
or agrees with the proposal after having fully understood it.
 Once the “person” accepts the proposal, the status of the proposal
changes to “accepted proposal”.
 “accepted proposal” becomes a promise. Note that the proposal is not a
promise. For the proposal to become a promise, it has to be accepted first.

Thus, in other words, an agreement is obtained from a proposal. Once the

proposal, made by one or more of the participants affected by the proposal, is
accepted by all the parties, it becomes an agreement.
2
Enforceable By Law

Now let us try to understand this aspect of the definition as is present in the Act.
Suppose a person agrees to sell the Tajmahal for one crore rupees to a friend.
Can they have a contract for this? It can be argued that once two persons agree
on the promise, it becomes an agreement. But in order to be a contract as per the
definition of the Act, the agreement has to be legally enforceable.

Thus we can say that for an agreement to change into a Contract as per the Act,
it must give rise to or lead to legal obligations or in other words, must be within
the scope of the law. Thus we can summarize it as Contract = Accepted
Proposal (Agreement) + Enforceable by law (defined within the law)

3
Void Agreement and voidable Contract
As per section 2 (h) of Indian Contract Act, contract has been defined as “An
agreement enforceable by law”. Therefore any agreement which is not
enforceable by law can’t be termed as contract. Continuing with the previous
example of a person entering into a contract to sell the moon, we can safely
assume that such an agreement will be a void agreement ab initio.

However there are instances where a contract is originally considered to be legal

and enforceable, but can be rejected by one party if the contract is discovered to
have defects. If a party with the power to reject the contract chooses not to
reject the contract despite the defect, the contract remains valid and enforceable.
Most often, only one of the parties is adversely affected by agreeing to a
voidable contract in which that party fails to recognize the misrepresentation or
fraud made by the other party.

Therefore as we can see, when dealing with contracts, the terms "void" and
"voidable" are often confused. To understand them fully, here are the definitions
of each one as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872-

Void Agreement- As per Section 2(g), “an agreement not enforceable by law is
said to be void”. The agreements which have been expressly declared void by
the act are as follows-

 Agreement of which the consideration or the object is not lawful. (Sec

23,24)
 Agreement without consideration. (Sec 25)
 Agreement in restraint of marriage. (Sec 26)
 Agreement in restraint of trade. (Sec 27)
 Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. (Sec 28)
 Agreement which is ambiguous and uncertain. (Sec 29)
 Agreement by way of wager. (Sec 30)
 Agreement to do an impossible act. (Sec 56)

Voidable Contract- As per Section 2(i) of the Act: “An agreement which is
enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at
the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract.”

A voidable contract is a Valid Contract. In a voidable contract, at least one of

the parties has to be bound to the terms of the contract. The other party is not
bound and may choose to repudiate or accept the terms of the contract. If they

4
so choose to repudiate the contract, the contract becomes void. Otherwise, a
voidable contract is a valid contract.
The following table shows the differences between the two-
Void Contract
“A contract which ceases to be
enforceable by law becomes void
when it ceases to be enforceable”.
A contract becomes void if either it
lacks the essential elements, the law
changes drastically or the terms of
the contract change such that it is no
longer possible to enforce the
contract in a court of law.
Void contracts can’t be fulfilled.
This type of contract can’t grant any
rights or considerations to any of the
involved parties.
Nature of Void agreement
Voidable Contract
“An agreement which is enforceable
by law at the option of one or more
of the parties thereto, but not at the
option of the other or others, is a
voidable contract.”
A contract becomes a voidable
contract when at least one of the
parties reserves its consent or the
consent of one of the parties was not
free at the time of the formation of
the contract.
The validity and enforceability of the
voidable contract depend on the
choice of the unbound party. If the
unbound party decides to repudiate
the contract it becomes void.
The right to rescind a voidable
contract is retained by the unbound
party.
5
A void contract cannot be enforced by law. However, when a contract is being
written and signed, there is no automatic mechanism available in every situation
that can be utilized to detect the validity or enforceability of that contract.
Practically, a contract can be declared to be void by a court of law. So the main
question is that under what conditions can a contract be deemed as void?

An agreement to carry out an illegal act is an example of a void agreement. For

example, a contract between drug dealers and buyers is a void contract simply
because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go
to court to enforce the contract. A void agreement is void ab initio, i.e. from the
beginning. In sum, there is no scope of any discretion on the part of the
contracting parties in a void contract. The contracting parties do not have the
power to make a void contract enforceable.

A contract can also be void due to the impossibility of its performance. For
instance, if a contract is formed between two parties A & B but during the
performance of the contract the object of the contract becomes impossible to
achieve (due to action by someone or something other than the contracting
parties), then the contract cannot be enforced in the court of law and is thus
void. A void contract can be one in which any of the prerequisites of a valid
contract is/are absent for example if there is no contractual capacity, the
contract can be deemed as void. In fact, void means that a contract does not
exist at all. The law cannot enforce any legal obligation to either party
especially the disappointed party because they are not entitled to any protective
laws as far as contracts are concerned.

The Indian Contract Act contains certain sections which have discussed void
contracts in detail which we are going to discuss next.

Void Agreements under Indian Contract Act

6
There are some agreements which have been specifically declared as void by
Indian Contract Act. Even if such agreements satisfy the conditions of a valid
contract, they are not enforceable. The agreement which have been declared
void by the Act are as follows-

 Agreement of which the consideration or the object is not lawful. (Sec

23,24)

Section 23 of the Act defines what consideration and objects are lawful, and
what are not. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless
—" it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would
defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies,
injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as
immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the
consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every
agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Section 24 of the Act states that, agreements are void, if considerations and
objects are unlawful in part. If any part of a single consideration for one or
more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for
a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.

 Agreement without consideration. (Sec 25)

Section 25 of the Act states that an agreement made without consideration is

void, unless-

a) it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being
in force for the registration of 1[documents], and is made on account of
natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to
each other; or unless
b) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already
voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the
promisor was legally compellable to do; or unless.
c) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged
therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf,
to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced
payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.

In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.

Agreement in restraint of marriage. (Sec 26)

7
Section 26 of the Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of
marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void. The
Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made
any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty
of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea
behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to
marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having
both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation
entered into at any point of time.

 Agreement in restraint of trade. (Sec 27)

Section 27 of the Act states that every agreement by which any one is
restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any
kind, is to that extent void. However there is an exception noted in the Act-

Exception --Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which goodwill

is sold.—One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer
to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits,
so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him,
carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the
Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In other
words, the Act allows Non-compete clause.

 Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. (Sec 28)

Section 28 of the Act states that every agreement, by which any party
thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect
of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or
which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to
the extent. However there are a couple of exception built into the law.
Exception 1- This section shall not render a contract illegal, by which two or
more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in
respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and
that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in
respect of the dispute so referred.

Exception 2 - Nor shall this section render illegal any contract in writing, by
which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question
between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any law
in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.

8
  Agreement which is ambiguous and uncertain. (Sec 29)

Section 29 of the Act states that agreements, the meaning of which is not
certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. This section implies that
contracts which are too vaguely written, or incapable to ascertaining
certainty is void ab initio.

 Agreement by way of wager. (Sec 30)

Section 30 of the Act states that agreements by way of wager are void; and
no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any
wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other
uncertain event on which any wager is made.

Exception- This section shall not be deemed to render unlawful a

subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made
or entered into for or toward any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value
or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner
or winners of any horse-race. However, nothing in this section shall be
deemed to legalize any transaction connected with horse-racing, to which
the provisions of section 294A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) apply.

 Agreement to do an impossible act. (Sec 56)

Section 56 of the Act states that an agreement to do an act impossible in

itself is void. Also a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made,
becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the Promisor could
not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or
unlawful.

Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with
reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not
know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make
compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains
through the non-performance of the promise.

Role of Judiciary

9
As we can see, the Contract Act makes an exhaustive list of Void agreements.
However over time, there have been numerous cases where the judiciary has
ruled on the various aspects of the Void contract. Various relevant sections have
been discussed in detail in such judgments, which makes understanding the law
easier. Some of such cases studies are discussed next.

 Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others on 26 March,

1959

The appellant, Gherulal Parakh, and the first respondent, Mahadeodas Maiya,
managers of two joint families entered into a partnership to carry on wagering
contracts with two firms of Hapur, namely, Messrs. Mulchand Gulzarimull
and Baldeosahay Surajmull. It was agreed between the partners that the
said contracts would be made in the name of the respondents on behalf of the
firm and that the profit and loss resulting from the transactions would be
borne by them in equal shares. In implementation of the said agreement, the
first respondent entered into 32 contracts with Mulchand and 49 contracts with
Baldeosahay and the nett result of all these transactions was a loss, with the
result that the first respondent had to pay to the Hapur merchants the entire
amount due to them. As the appellant denied his liability to bear his share of
the loss, the first respondent along with his sons filed O. S. No. 18 of 1937 in
the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Darjeeling, for the recovery of half of the
loss incurred in the transactions with Mulchand.

The case reached the Supreme Court of India on appeals and the court in its
judgment S.C.R. 874. dated 26/03/1959 discussed the case as per the Sections
23 and 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and observed-

“ The problem presented, with its different facets, is whether the said agreement
of partnership is unlawful within the meaning of s. 23 of the Indian Contract
Act. Section 23 of the said Act, omitting portions unnecessary for the present
purpose, reads as follows :

" The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-

it is forbidden by law, or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public

policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be

unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is
void." Under this section, the object of an agreement, whether it is of
partnership or otherwise, is unlawful if it is forbidden by law or the Court

10
regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy and in such cases the
agreement itself is void.”

 Percept D’Markr (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr. (Appeal
(civil) 5573-5574 of 2004)

Defendant entered into a contract for management of his media affairs with the
plaintiff company on the term that prior to the completion of first negotiation
period and thereafter, plaintiff will have the ‘right of first refusal’ in regard to
any offer for services of management of media affairs received by defendant;
such that defendant cannot accept any third party offer without offering plaintiff
right to match the offer on same terms and in plaintiff’s failing to do so.
However, defendant entered into an agreement with third party after the
termination of the said agreement and plaintiff claimed permanent injunction.

ISSUE: Whether the covenant was in restraint of trade u/s 27 and hence void?

CONTENTION (plaintiff):

If the plaintiff failed to match the third party offer, defendant was free to
negotiate with the third party; if the plaintiff however matched the offer,
defendant suffered no detriment. In either case, defendant was not restrained
and was not suffering. Further, the contract was one of agency and not of
employer-employee relationship such that it was unaffected by inequality of
bargaining power.

HELD:

The contract of agency as one entered here between the parties is of personal in
nature such that forcing the negative covenant will mean compelling the
defendant to get his affairs managed by the plaintiff company even after the
initial agreement has not been breached and has been lawfully terminated; this
will be in restrain of his right to trade with any person in any manner he
chooses. So long as it is sought to enforce the covenant while the subsisting of
the agreement it is valid, but the moment it is sought to be enforced after the
contract has been terminated, it will be violative of S.27 and hence, void and
unenforceable.

11
  Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Limited v Axis Bank Limited on 14-
10-2008

Since March 2008, Axis Bank and Rajshree Sugars have been fighting a legal
battle over the foreign exchange derivatives contract, sold by the Bank to the
company, thereby resulting in huge losses for the company estimated to be
around Rs.46-50 crores. The company had refused to make any loan repayment
to the bank contending that the contract was a wagering deal, and hence
untenable on such grounds. The Madras High Court answered this issue in the
negative. Based on the elucidations of various landmark judgments on wagers,
the court evolved a threefold test to determine whether the contract is a wager -
First, there must be two persons Holding opposite views touching a future
uncertain event; second, one of those parties is to win and the other is to lose
upon the determination of the event; third, both the parties have no actual
interest in the occurrence or non-occurrence of the event, but have an interest
only on the stake. The case in question fulfilled the first criteria, but the second
was not satisfied because in the light of the facts of the case, the plaintiff did not
always stand to lose. Citing Indian case law, the judges make an interesting
observation, that though every wagering contract is speculative in nature, every
speculation need not necessarily be a wager. Further, a common intention to
wager is essential, and an element of mutuality has to be present in the sense
that the gain of one party would be the loss of the other on the happening of the
uncertain event which is the subject matter of wager.
In the light of above mentioned points and also adhering to the Supreme Court
judgment in Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya,[xliv] the Judges in this
case concluded that the sequence of events in the present case reflected that the
nature of the transaction was not in the form of a wager. Even though the
plaintiff was susceptible to incurring huge losses yet that by itself could not
deem the contract to be a wager.

Suggestions and Conclusion

As section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 reads about agreements by way
of wager, void. Further The Contract Act does not define what constitutes a
wager or a wagering agreement. It only mentions that such agreements will be
void and unenforceable and no action can lie to either recover anything that is
due under a wager or for performance of a contract that is in the nature of a
wager. A wager is in the nature of a contingent contract but is prevented from
being enforceable by Section 30.Therefore, the Contract Act should provide an
express definition that would clarify as to what constitutes a wager, thereby
removing any ambiguity with regard to legality of derivative contracts which

12
are in the nature of wagering agreements. Also through the, in depth analysis of
various cases, books and views of the learned scholars in this project it can be
said that Section 30 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 needs to be reviewed
critically. Hence Section 30 should be amended to define the word wager. Since
a lot of inconvenience and ambiguity have been faced by the judiciary while
dealing with the issue of wagers, specifically as to what all constitute wagers
and what all comes under the ambit of wagers. As different jurists and in
different judgments the ambit of wagers is defined in different ways. In other
words the scope of section30 needs to be widened

 V.L. Narasu v. P.S.V. Iyer (AIR 1953 Mad 300)

Defendant contracted with plaintiff to screen latter’s film in his cinema house
until the net collection fall below some stipulated amount. Later there were
unprecedented heavy rains which made a wall of cinema house to collapse
owing to some latent defects, leading to death of three persons. There were
inspections going on, licenses were suspended, and orders for demolition of
theatre were also given. In view of alleged ‘impossibility’ of performance the
contract was abrogated by defendant.

ISSUES:

Whether the liability undertaken was absolute and in consequence of which,

defendant must be held liable for damages for breach of warranty; or whether
there has been frustration of contract so as to discharge him from his obligations
thereunder u/s 56?
Whether it was self-induced frustration brought about by conduct of defendant
such that he will be held liable for breach of contract u/s 39?

HELD:

Where parties bind themselves by absolute and positive obligations under a

contract which, to their knowledge, is dependent for the possibility of its
performance on the continued availability of the subject matter (either a thing
or, a person as in personal contracts) and that availability comes to an
unforeseen end by reason of circumstances over which its owner had no control,
the owner is not bound in the absence of any express or implied warranty that
the subject matter will continue to exist, unless he intends so either from express
provisions of the contract or from the surrounding circumstances. (Taylor v.
Caldwell) The principle of Taylor case is not limited to a specific thing, which
formed the subject matter of contract, perished before its execution, rather has
13
been extended to such a vital change of circumstances as to render the contract
unreal (Alope v. State of UP). In such cases, the contract, though in terms
absolute, must be construed as being subject to an implied condition that if
before breach, performance becomes impossible due to an unforeseen event,
without default of either party, the parties are to be excused from further
performance.

In present case, as implied from express provisions of contract, the continued

existence of theatre was the fundamental basis on which parties contracted. It is
also established that it had become impossible to screen the movie any longer in
view of cancelled licenses and demolition orders, events which were not in
contemplation of parties when they so contracted and were totally unforeseen
over which defendant had no control. There was neither any implied warranty
for the continued existence of the theatre nor any positive obligation of
defendant to be bound by contract in such fundamentally altered circumstances.
Hence, there was implied a condition that the agreement should terminate in
case licenses are cancelled or theatre ceases to exist without the default of any
party.

S.39: Reliance cannot be placed by defendant on ‘self-induced’ frustration;

indeed such conduct gives the other party to treat the contract as repudiated and
claim for damages. A party is faulty in ‘self-inducing frustration’ if the act or
omission which results in frustration is deliberate and intentional on its part and
not merely ‘passive negligence’. Conduct must amount to repudiation of the
contract as u/s 39: either from express words making clear the intention of the
party not to perform the contract or conduct from which such intention could be
implied. Therefore, mere negligent act or omission doesn’t amount to
repudiation and it must be to such a degree that the intention of the party not to
perform his obligations could be deduced. Therefore, the combined effect of
S.56 and S.39 is that frustration renders a contract void, unless there has been a
conduct antecedent to frustration amounting to repudiation thereof. Once
defendant has established frustration, the onus lies on plaintiff to show that the
frustration was ‘self induced’.

In present case, firstly, there were several construction defects as pointed out
but they were latent, secondly, there was unprecedented rainfall on the day
when mishap took place, thirdly, nothing was alleged to be done or omitted to
be done by defendant to intentionally repudiate a contract. Hence, plaintiff
hasn’t discharged his burden to prove deliberate omission on part of defendant
to take due care to maintain the safety standard in theatre, such that there was no
“self-induced frustration” as alleged.

14
There can be no frustration unless the change in circumstances is: 1) of a
permanent nature so as to render the contract impossible to be performed on any
future date or, 2) of fundamental nature or, 3) of such a duration, so as to make
the contract, when resumed, a different one from the original contract. Nature of
contract and surrounding circumstances are to be taken into account while
applying the aforementioned test.

In present case, there was no obligation of the defendant to construct a new

theatre in accordance with statutory requirements as immediately after its
demolition. Further, the gap of two years which took the completion of theatre
made the contract, if to be resumed, altogether different from the original one,
for the screening of the same film which had released before two years or more
was not commercially viable for the defendant and would no longer drew
crowds. Therefore, in present case, nature of the contract made any duration for
which it would have been subsisting a really short one.

15
Conclusion
Contract act plays an important role in our everyday life. It is difficult to carry
on any trade, business or any activity without contract act. It effects not only
business men but everybody. The aim of the contract act is to ensure that rights
and remedies are honoured which are raised by contract. Contract act lays down
conditions for parties to enter into contract. Agreements cover both offer and
acceptance and it is essential for making a contract. All contracts are
agreements but all agreements are not contracts, only those agreements are
contract which fulfills the conditions of
Section 10.

Now it is an accepted fact that contract is changing due to privatization,

industrialization, urbanization and globalization. Many new terms have come in
contract for example e-contract, escrow agreement, joint venture agreement,
contract farming, outsourcing contracts etc. All forms of E-Contracts ought to
be made as conspicuous as possible to satisfy legal standards of notice of terms.
Its binding legal nature must work upon the end-user, and browse-wrap notices
must ideally only be supplemental to a contract that the user has already
manifested his assent to.

In the present scenario, it is becoming more and more important to understand

the nuances of the Act. Understanding the legality of the contract is of
paramount importance as it can lead to serious consequences for all the parties
involved. The subtle differences between a void and voidable contracts should
also be studied and understood.

16
Bibliography

Books

 Dr R.K Bangia, Contract-I, 6th Edition, 2015, Allahabad

act Agency, Haryana (P 3-4, P 224-252)
 Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Bare Act)

Websites
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/voidable-
contract.asp
 https://www.actnotes.in/Indian_Contract_Act,_1872
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Contract_Act,_1872
 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?
formInput=indian+contract+act+1872

17