82 GENERAL PRINCIPLEs OF LAW OF

CONTLA
Court will enforce the legal promise or act and reject the one which is lilegal. If the llegal pror
act cannot be separated from the legal one, the whole contract is declared illegal promise o
Reciprocal promises (Sec. 57). Where persons reciprocaly promise, firstly, to do ce
things which are legal, and secondly, under specifled circumstances, to do certain other t
which are illegal, the first set of promises is a contract, but the second is a void agreement thing
Example. A and B agree thatA shall sell Ba house for Rs. 10,000 but that if B usee
a gambling house, he shall payA Rs. 50,000 for it. The first set of 1eciprocal promises, na
to sellthe house and pay Rs. 10,000 for it, is a contract. The second set is for an unlawt
object, namely that B may use the house as a gambling house and is a void agreement
Alternative promise, one branch being illegal (Sec. 58). In the case of an alternatie

promise, one branch of which is legal and the other illegal, the legal branch alone can be enforce
Example. A and B agree that A shall pay B Rs. 1,000, for which B shall afterwars
deliver to A either rice or smuggled opium. This is a valid contract to deliver rice, and a w
agreement as to the opium.
Agreements void, if consideration and objects unlawful in part (Sec. 24). If there are
are
several objects but there is a single consideration, the agreement is void if any one of the objectss
unlawful. Similarly, if there is a single object but there are several considerations, the agreement is
void if any one of the considerations is unlawful.
Example. A promises to superintend on behalf of B, a legal manufacture of indigo and an
of Rs. 90,000 a year. The
illegal traffic in other articles. B promises to pay to A salary
a
consideration for B's promise being in part
agreement is void, the object of A's promise and the
unlawful.

AGREEMENTS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLUCY

An agreement is said to be opposed to public policy when it is harmful to the public welfare
which has
is that principle of law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that
a
Public policy
mischievous tendency to be injurious to the interests of the public, or which is against the pubic
good or public welfare [Egerton v. Brownlow, (1853) 4 H.L.C.).
It is not possible to give a precise or exact definition of the term 'public policy'. It is, in a way,a

vague and elastic term. Moreover, "the flexibility of the doctrine of public policy is potentialy
dangerous. It could provide a judge with an excuse for invalidating any contract which he violenty
disliked." With this danger in mind, judges have sometimes criticised the doctrine of public policy. n
the words of Burrough,J., "Public polcy was a very unruly horse, and when once you get astn
you never know where it will carry you." |[Richardson v. Mellish, (1824) 2 Bing. 229, 252|
Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines Ltd., (1902) A.C. 484, Lord Davey observed
"public policy is always an unsafe and treacherous ground for legal decisions.. and that categis
of public policy are closed, and that no Court can invent a new head of public policy.
represents a very rigid and narrow view. According to this 'narrow view' school, Courts cani
te a
create new heads of public policy.The adherents of the 'narrow view' school would notinvall by
contract on the ground of public policy unless that particular ground has been well estabish
authorities. A new head of public policy can be coined only when the ham to the public pou
substantially inconstestable /Fender v. Mildmay, (1938) A.C. 11
ciples
According to the current school of thought, known as the 'broad view' school, the prinn.
9overning public policy must be and are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modinn
 LEGALITY OF OBJECT
83
Lord Denning. however, was not a man to shy away from unruly horses. In Enderby Town Football
Club Ltd. v. Football Assn. Ltd., he said: "With a good man in the saddle the unruly horse can be
kept in control. It can lump over obstacles." Again Danckwerts, L.J. in Nagle v. Fielden, (1966) 2
Q.B. 633, observed: "The law relating to public policy cannot remain immutable. It must change
with the passage of time. The wind of change blows it."
upon
Rejecting the argument that new heads of public policy should not be evolved for the risk of
unruliness and uncertainty involved in such an attempt, it has been held in Ratanchand Hirachand
v. Asker Nawaz Jung, A.l.R. (1976) A.P. 112 that in a modern progressive society with fast
changing social values and concepts, new heads of public policy need to be evolved whenever
necessary. Law cannot afford to remain static. It has, of necessity, to keep pace with the progress of
society and judges are under an obligation to evolve new techniques to meet the new conditions and
concepts.
A reference to the case of Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas, A.l.R. (1959) S.C. 781 will also
prove to be enlightening at this stage. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) observed in this case
"Public policy is a vague and unsatisfactory term, it is an elusive concept... The primary
cuty of a Court is to enforce a promise which the parties have made and to uphold the sanctity
of contracts which form the basis of society; but in certain cases, the Court may relieve them of
their duty on a rule founded on what is called public policy. This doctrine of public policy is only
a branch of Common Law.. the doctrine should only be invoked in clear and incontestable
cases of harm to the public. Though the heads of public policy are not closed and though
theoretically it may be permissible to evolve a new head under exceptional circumstances of a
changing world, it is advisable in the interest of stability of the society not to make any
attempt to discover new heads- in these days."
In another landmark judgment Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath,
A.I.R (1986) S.C. 1571, 1612, the Supreme Court observed
"The concept of what is for the public good or in the public interest or what would be
injurious or harmful to the public good or the public interest has varied from time to time. As
new concepts take the place of old, transactions which were once considered against public
policy are now being upheld by the Courts and similarly where there has been a well-recognised
head of public policy, the Courts have not shirked from extending it to new transactions and
changed circumstances and have at times not even flinched from investing a new head of public
policy... Practices which were considered perfectly normal at one time have today become
obnoxious and oppressive to public conscience. If there is no head of public policy which covers
a case, thern the Court must in consonance with public conscience and in keeping with public
good and public interest declare such practice to be opposed to public policy. Above all, in
deciding any case which may not be covered by authority our Courts have before them the
beacon light of the Preamble to the Constitution. Lacking precedent, the Court can always be
guided by that light and the principles underlying the Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Frinciples enshrined in our Constitution."
Some of the agreements which are, or which have been held to be, opposed to public policy
and are unlawful are as follows:
1. Agreements of trading with enemy. An agreement made with an alien enemy in time of
war is illegal on the ground of public policy. This is based upon one of the two reasons: either that
the further performance of the agreement could involve commercial intercourse with the'enemy, or
that the continued existence of agreement would confer upon the enemy an inmmediate or future
 84 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAw OF CONTRACT

benefit. Contracts which are entered into before the outbreak of war are either suspended oO
dissolved according as the intention of the parties can or cannot be carried out by postponino
ng
performance till the end of hostilities
2. Agreement to commit a crime. Where the consideration in an agreement is to commit a
crime, the agreement is opposed to public policy. The Court will not enforce such an agreement.
Likewise an agreement to indemnify a person against consequences of his criminal act is opposed t
public policy and hence unenforceable.
Examples. (a) A promises to indemnify B in consideration of his beating C. The
agreement opposed
is to public policy.
(b) A promises to indemnify a firm of printers and publishers of a paper against the
consequences of any libel which it might publish in its paper. Held, A's
enforced in a law Court where the firm was promise could not be
compelled pay damages for a published libel
W.H. Smith & Sons v. Clinton, (1908) 26 T.L.R. 34].
to

3. Agreements which interfere

with administration of
of which is to interfere with the
administration of
justice.
An agreement the
object
It may take any of the justice is unlawful, being opposed to public
policy.
following forms:
(a) Interference with the course of
of justice. An agreement which obstructs the
justice is unlawful. Thus an agreement for ordinary process
using improper influence of any kind with
officers of justice is unlawful. But the judges or
an agreement to refer
valid. present or future disputes to arbitration is
(b) Stifling prosecution. It is in
be prosecuted and public interest that if a
punished."You shall not make a trade person has committed a crime, he must
Bayley, (1866) 1 H.L. 2001. Hence an of felony (a
grave crime)" [Williams v.
stifling prosecution and is unlawful. Thus agreement not to prosecute an offender is an
instituted against B for where A agreement for
and B promises to promises
to drop a
robbery,
unlawful. But a compromise in case restore the stolen prosecution which he has
offences is valid. property,
of the agreement is
(c) Maintenance and compoundable
champerty. 'Maintenance' is an
otherwise, to another to enable
assistance has got no legal interest him to bring or agreement to give assistance, financial or
defend legal
Rs. 2,000 if B will of his own in the proceedings when the person
giving
maintenance agreement.
sue C. A's
motive is to subject-matter.
annoy C. This
For example, A offers to pay B3
bring an action fcr recovering'Champerty' is an agreement agreement between A and B is a
For example, A money or property, and is to whereby one party is to
assist another to
agrees to pay the share in the
proceeds received by B as expenses if B sues C, and proceeds of the action.
English Law, both these a result of the said suit. This a B agrees to give A one-half of any
absolutely void. If the object agreements are void.
of a contract The Indian champertous
Law, however,agreement. Under the
claim arising out of a is just to
assist does not
contract and then to the other make them
4. have a fair share party in
making
Agreements
deals with these
in restraint
of legal
in the profit, the
contract
a
reasonable
(a)
agreements renders void two kinds proceedings. Sec. 28 (as
is valid.
amended in 1996) which
Agreements
prohibits any party tromrestricting enforcement
of
agreements, viz.,
of rights. An
extent. entorcing his rights under or agreement which wholly,
in
(b)
Agreements curtailing respect of any contract is
or
void
partially,
to that
limitation period of
prescribed
provisions of law.
by the Law
ot limitation. Agreements
Limitation are void which
because their curtail the period ol
object is to
defeat the
LEGALITY OF OBJECT
85

Example. The rules of a crossword competition of a

that the first prize will be awarded for the solution weekly published by X Ltd. are (1)
that agrees most nearly with the one
sealed cover; (2) that in matters arising in the kept in a
legally binding on the competitors; and (3) competition,
the editor's decision shall be final
that at the expiration of three months from
and
the
publication of the prize list, X Ltd. shall not be liable to pay any claim unless a suit for it is then
pending.
Held, Rule No. 1 makes the competition a
wagering agreement under Sec. 30
next Chapter) |State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, (1957) S.C. 6991;(discussed in
Rule No. 2
restricts persons absolutely from enforcing their
rights through Court of law under Sec. 28; and
Rule No. 3 limits the time to a period shorter than the
period prescribed by the Law of
Limitation.
Similarly an agreement purporting to oust the jurisdiction of Courts is contrary to public
policy. But an agreement between two or more parties to refer to arbitration any disputes which
have arisen or which may arise between them is perfectly valid.
5. Trafficking in public offices and titles.
Agreements for the sale or transfer of public
offices and titles or for the procurement of a public recognition like Padma Vibhushan or Param
Veer Chakra for monetary consideration are unlawful, being opposed to public policy. Such
agreements, if enforced, would lead to inefficiency and corruption in public life. Similarly, an
agreement to pay money to a public servant to induce him to act corruptly or to retire and thus
make way for the appointment of the promisor or an agreement with voters to procure their votes
for monetary consideration are void on the ground of public policy.
Examples. (a) A promised to ottain an employment to B in a public office and B
promised to pay A Rs. 1,000. Held, the agreement was against public policy and illegal
Parkinson v. College of Ambulance, Ltd. (1925) 3 K.B. 1).
(b) R paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 to A who agreed to obtain a seat for R's son in a Medical
College. On A's failure to get the seat, R filed a suit for the refund of Rs. 15,000. Held, the
agreement was against public policy N. V.P. Pandian v. M.M. Roy, A.l.R. (1979) Mad. 42].
6. Agreements tending to create interest opposed to duty. lf a person eriters into an
agreement whereby he is bound to do something which is against his public or professional duty, the
agreement is void on the ground of public policy.
Examples. (a) P directs A, his agent, to buy, a certain house for him. A tells P that it cannot
be bought and buys the house for himself. P may, on discovering that A has bought the house,
compel A to sell it to him (P) at the price A gave for it.
b) An agreement by a newspaper proprietor not to comment on the conduct of a particular
person is unlawful being opposed to public policy INeville v. Dominion of Canada News Co. Ltd.,
(1915) 3 K.B. 556].
7. Agreements in restraint of parental rights. A father, and in his absence the mother, is
the legal guardian of his/her minor child. This right of guardianship cannot be bartered away by any
cannot enter into an
agreement. A father is entitled by law to the custody of his legitimate child. He
such
agreement which is inconsistent with his duties arising out of such custody. If he enters into any
agreement, it shall be void on the ground of public policy.
8. Agreements restricting personal liberty. Agreements which unduly restrict the personal
reedom of the parties to it are void as being agairnst public policy.
without the lender's
Example. A debtor agreed with his money-lender that he would not, his residence.
written consent, leave his job or borrow money, or dispose of his property, or change
1 K.B. 305].
Held, the agreement was void [Horwood v. Millar's Timber & Trading Co., (1917)
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF
86 CONTRA C
9. Agreements in restraint of marriage. Every agreement in restraint of the marrias
nerson, other than a minor, is void (Sec. 26). This is because the law regards marriage
status as the right of every individual.
and
married
Examples. (a) P promised to marry L only and none else and to pay L a sum of Rs. 2.0
if he married someone else. P married X. Held, L could not recover the sum agreed
agreement was in restraint of marriage [Lowe v. Peers, (1768) Burr. 225] the
(b) The consideration under a sale deed was for marriage expenses of a minor girl aged 12
Held, the sale was a void transaction, being opposed to public policy |Maheswar Das u. Sakhi De
A.I.R. (1978) Ori. 84].
10. Marriage brokerage or brocage agreements. An agreement by which a person, for a
in return to procure the marriage of another is void, bein
monetary consideration, promises
to pay money to the parent or guardian of
opposed to public policy. Similarly, an agreement
to give the minor in marriage is void, being opposed t
minor in consideration of his/her consenting
public policy.
which interferes with the
11. Agreements interfering with marital duties. Any agreement
to public policy. Such agreements have been
performance of marital duties is void, being opposed
held to include the following:
to marry, during the lifetime or after the death of spouse
(a) A promise by a married person
IRoshan v. Mahomad, (1887) P.R. 46|.
an agreement to lend money to a woman in
(6) An agreement in contemplation of divorce, e.g., lender
consideration of her getting a divorce and marrying
the [Tikyat v. Manohar, 28 Cal. 751.
will always stay at the wife's parents' house and that
(c) An agreement that the husband and wife
the wife will never leave her parental house.
r e v e n u e authorities. An agreement
the object
12. Agreements to defraud creditors or
revenue authorities is not enforceable, being
opposed to
of which is to defraud the creditors or the in excess of the
an expense allowance grossly
public policy. A contract by which an employee gets authorities. Similarly, every
expenses actually incurred by him
is illegal and a fraud on revenue
to a
transfer of property which is not made (i) before
and in consideration of marriage, or (i)
or
faith and for valuable consideration, is void against the Official Receiver
purchaser in good the date
presented within two years of
Assignee, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent on petition
a

of the transfer.
13. Agreements in restraint of trade. An agreement
which interferes with the liberty of a
or vocation is called an agreement
person to engage himself in any lawful trade, profession
restraint of trade'. Public policy requires that every man should be at liberty to work for himselr a
should not be at liberty to deprive himself of the fruit of his labour, skill or talent by any conu
Bom. L.R. 107,
he enters into (S.B. Fraser & Co. v. The Bombay lce Mfg. Co., (1904) 29
that
is also in the interest of the community that every man should be at liberty to engage himselr m a

consistent with the goou

trade, protession or business and use his skill to the best of his capacity
the community. As such, every agreement, by which anyone is retained from exercising d i awful

profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void (Sec. 27). nus is
Where an agreement is challenged on the-ground of its being in restraint of trade, tne t
upon the party supporting the contract to show that the restraint is reasonably necessary T Ps
ertheless

his interests. Once this onus is discharged, the, onus of showing that the restraint is n e
v.
injuriousto the public is upon the party attacking the contract INiranjan Shankar
ing & MJg. Co. Ltd.. A.l.R. (1967) S.C. 1068).
 LEGALITY OF OBJECTr
87
Examples. (a) Out of 30 makers of combs in the city of Patna, 29 agreed with R to supply
him and to no one else all their
output. R was free to reject the goods if he found no market for
them. Held the agreement was void
(Shaikh Kalu v. Ram Saran Bhagat, (1909} 8 C.W.N.
388.
6) A, who was carrying on business of brazier (pan for holding burning coal), promised
another person B, carrying on a similar trade in the same locality, to stop his business in
consideration of B giving him a certain amount which he had advanced to his workers. B,
subsequent to A's closing the business, refused to pay. A flied a suit for the recovery of the
amount. Held, the agreement was void
[Madhau v. Raj Coomar, (1874) 18 B.L.R 76.
In England the law relating to restraint of trade is
based on the famous case of Nordenfelt. v.
Maxim Nordenfelt Gun Co., (1894) A.C. 535. The
restraints of trade are void. A restraint can however be
general principle of law there is that all
justified if it is reasonable in the interest of
the contracting parties and the public. In India it is valid if it
falls within any of the statutory
exceptions.
Exceptions. The folloving are the exceptions to the rule that "an agreement in restraint of
trade is void":
(i) Sale of goodwill. A seller of goodwill of a business may be restrained from
similar business, (ii) within specified local limits, carrying on (i)a
(ii) long
so as the buyer or any person deriving
title to the goodwill from him carries on a like business:
Court reasonable regard being had to the nature of the business
provided (iv) that such limits appear to the
(Exception to Sec. 27).
Limits' means local limits' and the duration of the restraint is so
long as the buyer or any
person deriving title to the goodwill from him carries on the like business
lce& Oil Mills Co., A.I.R. (1980) Raj. 155].
[Hukmi Chand v. Jaipur
(2) Partners' agreements. (a) A partner shall not carry on any business other than that of
the
like while he is a partner (Sec. 11 (2) of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932].
(6) An outgoing partner may agree with his partners not to carry on a business similar to that of
the firm within a specified period or within
specified local limits (Sec. 36 (2) of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932.
(c) Partners may, upon or in
anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that
some or all of them will not carry on a business similar to that of the
firm within a specified period
or within
specified local limits (Sec. 54 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932).
(d) Where the goodwill of a firm is sold after dissolution, a partner
may carry on a business
competing with that of the buyer and he may advertise such business. But, subject to
between him and the buyer, he may not (a) use ihe firm name, agreement
the business of the firm, or (c) solicit custom of
(b) represent himself as
carrying on
persons who were dealing with the firm before its
dissolution [Sec. 55 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932].
e) Any partner may, upon the sale of goodwill of a firm, make an
that such agreement with the buyer
partner will not carry on any business similar to that of the fim within a
within specified local limits (Sec. 55 (3) of the Indian specified period or
Partnership Act, 19321.
In cases (b), (c) and (e), the Courts will enforce such
are reasonable. agreements only if the restrictions imposed
Trade combinations
Traders and manufacturers in the same line of
business normally form associations to
businessor to fix
prices. The regulations as to the opening and regulate
closing of business in a market,
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF
GENERAL

88 mode ot dealing
are not unlawful
dealers and the
and control of
supervision
licensing of traders,
are in
restraint of trade. companies not to sell lce
even if they ice manufacturing
between certain Sec. 27. Such
agreement is not void under
Examples. (a) An certain proportion
divide the profits in IS.B. Fraser & Co.
a
below a stated price and to opposed to public policy
in restraint of trade
nor
neither
agreements are
(1904) 29 Bom. L.R. 107].
Bombay lce Mfg. Co., maintain price is not
necessarily disadvantageous
supply and
(b) A combination to regulate to public policy {North Western Salt Co. y.
as such is not opposed
to the public and
A.C. 461.
Electrolytic Co., (1914) to deliver all hops grown
members of a society of hop growers
c) An agreement among the the members is
which was to sell the hops
and divide the profit among
by them to the society
2 K.B. 174].
valid [English Hop Growers v. Derring (1928)
and which is against the public interest is
But a combination which tends to create monopoly
A.C. 724]. Same is the case when two
void Attorney of Austrailia v. Adelaid S.S. Co., (1913)
Kahna Ram, A.I.R. 1963) H.P. 3:
firms enter !into an agreement to avoid competition [Jai Ram v.
Kores Mfg. Co. Ltd., v. Kores Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1958) 2 All E.R. 65].

Service contracts
Sometimes an employee, by the terms of his service agreement, is prevented from accepting
() any other engagement during his employment, and/or
(i) a similar engagement after the termination of his services.
As regards the first restraint, it is valid and is not in restraint of trade if it is to
operate while the
employee is contractually bound to serve his employer [Niranjan Shankar v. Century
Mfg. Co. Ltd., A.L.R. (1967) S.C. 1068]. The doctors, for example, are Spinning &
private practice during the term of their employment. usually debarred fromm
As regards the second
restraint, it is void if its
employee in his employers business. Therefore, a object
is merely to restrain
restraint on an employee not to
competition by an
similar business, or not to accept a similar engage in a
In Brahamputra Tea engagement, after the termination of his services, is void.
Company v.
restraining an employee trom takingScarth, (1885) 11 Cal. 545, it was held that an
service or agreement
years after the termination of his service was engaging in any similar business for a period of 5
not act in any theater other void. Similarly, a restraint
than that of the on an actor that
he
being restraint of trade |Cohen v. Wilkie, 166
in employerduring tour of India was held to bewould
his
If C.W.N. 534]. void,
a restraint is intended to
protect an
learned by him in the course ot his employer against an
purpose also. employment, the restraint isemployee
valid
making use of trade secrets
provided it is not for any other
Examples. (a) A was chietly engaged in
instructed in certain contidential methods making glass bottles. B, his
furnaces. B agreed that during the concerning correct mixture of
works manager, was
carry on in the United five years after the gas and air in the
Kingdom.
ontitled to protection and that the or be
interested in, termination of his
service, he would not
(1918) 35 T.LR. 87 restraint was glass bottle manufacture.
reasonable [Forster &. Held, A was
(b) A servant copied Sons Ltd. v.
1oft his
employment. Held,the henames and addresses of his Suggett,
could be
Q.B. 315. restrained from employer's
using the list customers for use
[Robb v. Green, after he
(1895) 2
 89
LEGALITY OF OBJECT

(c) Hemployed A on a highly skilled work with access to the manufacturing data. In his

spare time A worked for B on a similar work in competition

with H. Held, A was in breach of
(1946) Ch.
his duty and could be restrained from working for B [Hivac Ltd. v. Park Royal,
169].
the exercise of
However, an employer cannot prevent an employee from earning his living by
Ltd. v. Saxelby, (1916) 1 A.C. 688, it
his skill and the use of his knowledge. In Herbert Morris, are
was observed: "A man's aptitudes, his skill, his dexterity,
his manual or mental ability...
interest which compels the
not his master's property; they are his own property. There is no public
rendering of these things dormant unavailing.
or sterile or

Example. A, a tailor, employed as his assistant L under a contract by which L agreed

on

sixteen kilometres
the termination of his employment not to carry on business as a tailor within
3 K.B. 571].
of A's establishment. Held, the agreement was void [Attwood v. Lamont, (1920)

Summary
An agreement is a contract if it is made for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object (Sec. 10).
is
consideration is unlawful is void. The consideration or object of an agreement
Every agreement of which the object or
of another or the
unlawful if it is forbidden by law: or it is fraudulent, or involves or implies injury to the person or property
Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy (Sec. 23).
This rule is based on the following two maxims: (1)
Effects of illegality. No action is allowed on an illegal agreement.
No action arises from a base cause. (2) Where there is equal guilt, the defendant is in a better position.
become
The effect of illegality are summed up as follows: (1) The collaterai transactions to an illegal agreement also
tainted with illegality. (2) No action can he taken for the (a) recovery of money paid or property transferred under an illegal
agreement, and (b} breach of an illegal agreement.

AGREEMENTS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY

when it is injurious to the welfare of the society or it tends to be
An agreement is said to be opposed to public policy
harmful to the public interest. The following agreements are, or have been held to be, opposed to public policy:
crime. 3. Agreements interfering with administration
1. Agreements of trading with enemy. 2. Agreement to commit a
of justice. These include (a) agreements for stifling prosecution, and (6) agreements which interfere with the course of justice.
4. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings. These include (a) agreements to oust the jurisdiction of Courts, and (b)
of public offices. 6. Agreements tending to create
agreements to vary periods of limitation. 5. Agreements for the sale
8. Agreements restricting personal liberty. 9.
interest opposed to duty. 7. Agreements in restraint of parental rights.
11. Agreements in restraint of marriage. 10.
Agreements in restraint of marriage. 10. Marriage brokerage agreements.
marital duties. 12. Agreements in traud of creditors or
Marriage brokerage agreements. 11. Agreements interfering with
revenue authorities. 13. Agreements in restraint of trade. An agreement in restraint of trade is one which restrains a person
which anyone is restrained from exercising a
from freely exercisinghis trade, business or profession. Every agreement, by
lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is, to that extent, void (Sec. 27). Exceptions are made in case of agreements
for sale of goodwill and partners' agreements provided the restraint is reasonable.

Objective Type Questions