Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Dr. Sridevi Krishna
Assistant Professor
Vidyavardhaka Law College
Mysore
Agreements declared as void
• Agreement of which the consideration or the object
is not lawful (s 23 & 24)
• Agreement without consideration (s25)
• Agreement in restraint of marriage( s 26)
• Agreement in restraint of trade(s 27)
• Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings (s 28)
• Agreement which is ambiguous and uncertain (s 29)
• Agreement by way of wager(s 30)
• Agreement to do an impossible act(S 56)
S24-Agreements void, if considerations and
objects 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
• A promises to do, on behalf of B, a legal
manufacturer of indigo, and an illegal traffic in
other articles. B promises to pay to A, a salary
of 10,000 rupees a year for both the jobs. The
whole agreement is void.
Agreement in restraint of marriage( s 26)
• Trade combinations
• Solus agreement- where the seller or the
manufacturer of a certain product may agree that he
will suplly the whole of his product to a particular
buyer only, or a buyer may agree that he will
purchase all his requirements of a certain commodity
from a particular seller only and none else.
Exceptions
• When the buyer does not agree to purchase
the whole quantity he cannot restrain the
seller from selling his surplus to others.
• When the object of agreement is to corner
goods or to monopolize trade or restrain for
unduly longer period
28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void
• Every agreement,-
• (a) 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; or
• (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto,
or discharges any party thereto from any liability,
under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a
specified period so as to restrict any party from
enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.
• Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act renders void two
kinds of agreement, namely:
• An agreement by which a party is restricted absolutely
from enforcing his legal rights arising under a contract
by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals.
• An agreement which limits the time within which the
contract rights may be enforced.
• Hyman v Hyman. In this case, a covenant in a
separation deed provided that the wife would not apply
to the divorce-court for maintenance and it was held
that it was void as being contrary to public policy.
• An agreement which provides that a suit should be brought for
the breach of any terms or agreement within a time shorter
than the period of limitation prescribed by law is void.
• The effect of such an agreement is absolutely necessary to
restrict the parties from enforcing their rights after the
expiration of the stipulated period, though it may be within the
period of the limitation sometimes occur where parties agree to
extend the period of limitation.
• There is no restriction imposed upon the right to sue; on the
contrary, it seeks to keep the right to sue subsisting even after
the period of limitation. It would, however be void under s.23,
as tending to defeat the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908,
s.3 which provides that every suit instituted after the period of
limitation prescribed by the act shall be dismissed, although
limitation has not been set up as a defence
Agreement extinguishing rights on expiry of a specified period