Void Agreements In Contract Act

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that consideration may be provided by „the promise or any other person“ as long as it is made „at the request of the promiser.“ In Currie v. Misa, the court defined valuable consideration as „within the meaning of the law may consist of either a right, interest, indulgence, disadvantage, loss or liability given, suffered or assumed by the other“. Article 25 of the Act states that all agreements would be cancelled without consideration, unless they fall into the following categories: The court decided that there was no restriction of marriage in the contract. All that was made available was that if the widow decided to remarry, she had to give up her property rights. [7] (c) The promise was to do something in person, and the promisor dies or is handicapped by an illness or misadventure. Such cases are usually seen in the practical world. The action of the property was therefore the basis of the contract. The purpose of the contract was thwarted because the property was cancelled, so the defendant was not required to pay the rest of the rent. Exception 2: This section also does not make it illegal to enter into a written contract where two or more persons undertake to refer to arbitration a matter that has already arisen between them or to make a provision of an arbitration law currently in force. In this case, both predict what happens to uncertain future events and if A wins, B has to pay and vice versa. Contracts like this are called deemed void betting contracts. The doctrine does not apply to ordinary commercial agreements aimed at regulating and promoting trade during the existence of the contract, provided that any prevention of work outside the treaty as a whole relates to the use of the party`s services and not to their sterilization. .

. .