A void agreement is defined as an agreement that has no legal effect from the beginning. This means it is considered invalid from its outset and cannot be enforced in any court of law. According to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, void agreements are fundamentally flawed, often due to illegal elements, making them unenforceable by default. In contrast, a voidable contract is initially valid and enforceable but may be annulled by one party if certain conditions are met.
The Contract Act outlines the nature of such agreements and contracts:
In essence, the main characteristic of a void agreement is its inherent lack of legal effect from inception, distinguishing it from voidable contracts or valid agreements.
In legal studies, it's crucial to understand different types of contracts as per the Contract Act 1872. The options provided relate to the nature of a contractual agreement between two parties planning to engage in illegal activities, such as robbing a bank.
A contract is defined in Section 2(h) as an agreement enforceable by law. For an agreement to be a valid contract, it should not involve illegal actions or purposes. Here's why a contract to rob a bank is considered a 'void contract':
Based on these explanations, the agreement to rob a bank is a 'Void Contract' as it involves illegal activity.
To determine the nature of the agreement made by an adult but involving a minor where the signatory is a minor child himself, we can analyze it under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. According to Section 2(h) of the Act, a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. However, agreements involving minors have specific considerations.
Key points from the Indian Contract Act:
Given the comprehension from the Act, an agreement signed by a minor and involving them is a "void agreement" because:
Thus, the agreement described would be classified as:
A void agreement
Scenario | Analysis | Conclusion |
---|---|---|
An agreement signed by someone under duress | This scenario describes a voidable contract, not a void agreement. The contract is enforceable unless the disadvantaged party chooses to void it. | Voidable, not void |
A contract with mutually agreed terms to sell a house | This represents a valid contract. It is enforceable by law with no fundamental illegal elements. | Valid |
An agreement to pay 10 lakhs on getting a government job | This is likely a void agreement because it involves an agreement that lacks lawful consideration. Consideration based on obtaining a government job is illegal. | Void |
A contract with a minor who understands the terms | Contracts with minors are generally considered void, as minors lack the capacity to contract. | Void |
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Hadley v. Baxendale} & \text{(1) Undue Influence} \\ \hline \text{(B) Henkel v. Pape} & \text{(II) Coercion} \\ \hline \text{(C) Manu Singh v. Umadat Pandey} & \text{(III) Quantum of Damages} \\ \hline \text{(D) Chikkam Amiraju v. Seshamma} & \text{(IV) Mistake} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]