If the purpose or consideration of an agreement is unethical, it is cancelled. the following examples would help to better understand the purpose. Section 23 specifies that the consideration or purpose of the agreement is illegal when it is “fraudulent.” However, subject to such similar exceptions and exemptions, contracts that are not illegal and are not fraud must be respected in all respects: pacta conventa quae neque contra leges neque dolo mall inita suntmodo observanda sunt (contracts that are not illegal) and which do not come from fraud must be respected in all respects). A promises to deal with it on behalf of B, a legal manufacturer of Indigo, and an illegal trade in other items. B promises to pay A salary of 10,000 rupees a year. The agreement is annulled, the purpose of A`s promise and the consideration of B`s promise, partly illegal. Therefore, the Indian Contract Act provides us with the parameters that constitute such a legitimate consideration and the purpose of the contract. Although the cause or reflection for the agreement, sometimes indirectly prohibited by law, they are still prohibited when nature destroys the purpose of the provision of the law. The authorization of such an object or such consideration is void. If a decree-law provides for a sanction for an act or promise, the fulfillment of such an act or promise would amount to the defeat of that law, because it is implied that the statute intends to prohibit that act. 3. In Re: K.L.
Gauba (23.04.1954 – BOMHC) [AIR 1954 Bom 478]. Para 11: “… The freedom of the citizen, as well as the freedom of the lawyer to enter into a contract, is always subject to the public order imperatives as expressed in page 23 of the Indian Contract Act. This freedom is also subject to the other considerations set out in question 23. Non-reproducible offences that are affected by public opinion should not be the subject of good private business and the management of criminal justice should not pass from the hands of judges to individuals. If the offence is a public act, no agreement based on stifling prosecution in this regard can be valid. The payment of $470 million by the Union Carbide Corporation to the Union of India was found to be non-burdensome for prosecutions and non-illegal payments; Union Carbide Corporation/Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248. In accordance with the provisions of Section 23, an agreement involving the violation of a person or the assets of a third party is null and void and cannot be invoked by court, so that no right to violate such an illegal agreement can be considered bearable. In accordance with Section 23, the difference between non-concluded agreements and illegal agreements is very small or minimal. Anson13: “The law can either prohibit the agreement or it can only say that if it is done, the courts will not enforce it.
In the first case, it is illegal, but to the extent that illegal contracts are also non-hazard, although nullity contracts are not necessarily necessary, the distinction is not important for most purposes, and even judges seem to treat them as alternative. In each of these cases, the review or the purpose of an agreement is considered illegal. Any agreement whose purpose or consideration is illegal is void.