Questionable agreements: Simply put, agreements that are not legally enforceable are null and void agreements. The sections of the Indian Contracts Act that set out the definition, work and implementation with respect to questionable agreements are sections s17 and s18 r.w s19, s21-23, s27-30, s32, s36, s56, s64, s66, etc. Under section 19 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, “If consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract that is voidable at the discretion of the party whose consent was so caused.” In the case of the indication of facts that are not true, by active concealment, a promise made without any intention, a positive statement that is not justified by the person making it, a breach of an obligation, errors (Article 22 of the ICA), the conclusion of an agreement with undue influence and coercion may nullify an agreement. The party affected by the factors that make the contract voidable must avoid it, otherwise the agreement will remain valid. It is advisable not to enter into agreements that seem too fraudulent in their behavior. This is proposed because the party then has to prove the fraud and all the factors in court, which is very laborious and mentally exhausting. However, there are certain exceptions to the nullity of an agreement under Article 19. In the event that consent is given by false declaration (art. 18), silence or fraud (art. 17), the agreement will not be considered voidable if the party whose consent was taken into account had the methods to find the truth with the usual care. A questionable contract is an agreement that is not legally enforceable. It becomes void for many legal reasons such as fraud, error, misrepresentation, etc. According to the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a proposal is made when a person shows his willingness to do or to abstain from doing or abstaining from any type of work, it is said that he makes a proposal.
If the person to whom the proposal is made gives consent, the proposal is accepted and converted into a promise. Every promise that forms a consideration for each other ultimately leads to an agreement. Thereafter, each agreement in its final analysis is the result of a proposal by one party and its adoption by the other. They are made for legal consideration and for legal purposes. 2. A Party whose consent has been caused by fraud or misrepresentation may, if it deems it appropriate, insist that the contract be performed and that it be put in the situation it would have been in if the assurances given had been true. ConclusionThis is how the Indian Contracts Act defines contestability in its ultimate scope and is well suited to protect the rights and interests of individuals on a large scale. It is designed to meet all the obligations of both parties.
Although Indian Contract Law was designed to promote and maintain contractual ties between the parties, it is also crucial to restrict contracts and agreements that cause suffering to the general public. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v Century Spg & Mfg Co LtdThe complainant worked as an intern in the tire cord wire production unit. The agreement had a duration of 5 years and it was clarified that the complainant would not be active in any other field during that period and would maintain secrecy with regard to the technical parts of his work. However, after completing his training, the complainant joined the competing company which had the same activity of producing tyre cord wires. The complainant was employed by the new company for a higher salary of Rs 560 per month than he received from the defendant company. In addition to the lawsuit, the defendant company also claimed Rs 2410 as damages. Clause 17 of the agreement prevented the complainant from transmitting data, instruments, records, reports, ownership benefits, manufacturing measures, etc. to any other company active in the production of pneumatic cord wires. The complainant argued that this agreement had been implemented inappropriately, seriously and under duress and examined its legitimacy on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy.
He replied that article 17, which prevented him from serving in any other place, constituted a direct implementation of the reservation of his right to trade or do business and that such a period was superfluous for the protection of the integration of the defendant company into the enterprise. The court later concluded that the application of the bond with employees to protect trade secrets does not mean that there has been a restriction of the profession. It is clear that it does not fall within the scope of section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act. The decision in favour of the respondent company and therefore the respondent failed. Article 28 stipulates that agreements restricting judicial proceedings shall be deemed null and void. Therefore, if an agreement stipulates that the time limit for filing a claim is 3 months (i.e. 3 years under the limitation period), that agreement is void under Article 28. Article 28 contains exceptions in which judicial proceedings may be suspended for a limited period.
This is done in the case of arbitration. Once the arbitration is complete and the party is not satisfied with the decision, it may subsequently initiate legal proceedings. In the case of Tapas Majumdar v. Pranav das Gupta5, a club from West Bengal said no one would question the way and decision in which the election committee will work or elect representatives. This clearly prevented members from going to court. Consequently, that declaration was void within the meaning of Article 28. Betting agreements are void under Article 30. Betting contracts are contracts in which both parties have opposing opinions about an uncertain future event. They mutually agree to pay money, or anything else on the issue of profit or loss. This article is clearly in line with article 29, which lists uncertain agreements or arrangements that may become dangerous because they are void. The only exception here is horse racing. Horse racing is considered both a sport based on luck and skill.
For this reason, horse racing gambling in India is legal under the Police Act of 1888 or the Gambling Act of 1930. On the other hand, the chit funds do not fall under the issue. In babasaheb v. Rajaram, two wrestlers agreed to play a wrestling match. They agreed on the condition that if one of them does not show up, he must pay 500 rupees to the counterparty. The defendant did not show up in the ring and the plaintiff sued him for 500 rupees. However, it cannot be a betting agreement because the most important essence of the betting agreement is to “win or lose”. Since there was no “win” or “loss” as a result of the wrestling match, this does not fall under section 30 of the Indian Contracts Act.Conditional contracts are contracts based on the “do`s” or “don`t do” situation (s. 31). A conditional contract is very different from a betting contract because conditional contracts depend on events that are the security of the contract.