Thus, any agreement imposing restrictions on a professional as to the choice of his commercial activity is annulled. Some agreements are unenforceable in court because they are contrary to public policy and the public interest. Such agreements are not illegal, they can still be concluded, but they are not enforceable in court. In other words, if one of the parties to the agreement does not fulfil its obligations in such an agreement, the injured party cannot bring the case before a court of competent jurisdiction to assert its rights. Agreements restricting commercial, matrimonial and judicial proceedings are examples of this. In kores Mfg Co Ltd v. Kulok Mfg Ltd, the two employees of the sugar factory had entered into an agreement under which one of them would not employ a person who had worked in the other person`s factory for the past 5 years to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. The court annulled this agreement because the ban applied to all employees, regardless of their abilities and positions. Paragraph 27 is in principle based on public policy and applies to different cases to varying degrees. In Brahmaputra tea co ltd v. Scarth, the court concluded that any restriction by which a person binds is not void and falls within the exceptions of section 27.

These legal and judicial exceptions are discussed below. As mentioned earlier, a contract is a relationship between the parties, and rights flow from the relationships, but it does not follow that each contract creates a right that is immediately enforceable. The right created may be a right on which the parties agree, which would only be enforceable on the occurrence of a future event, for which neither party makes a promise, and which therefore constitutes a guarantee for the contract. These are commercial agreements in which the manufacturer enters into an agreement with the consumer that he would only buy items from him for a certain period of time. However, if the manufacturer produces an excess quantity, he is allowed to sell it to anyone. “As long as the negative provision is nothing more than an ordinary incident or a minor matter with positive engagement, there is virtually nothing abhorrent about Article 27. However, the court cannot tolerate the agreement, particularly if the buyers intend to monopolize or monopolize the goods in order to resell them at their own price or if they bind the seller for an unreasonable period of time. [11] This was pointed out in Sheikh Kallu vs Ramsaran Bhagat. A person may engage in any legal profession or enterprise of his or her choice. Any agreement that prevents it from doing so in order to avoid competition or maintain a monopoly.

Such an agreement is invalid Example: A agrees to sell 1000 kg of wood to B. The agreement does not specify the type of timber to be sold, which makes the agreement dangerous and therefore void. The doctrine does not apply to ordinary commercial contracts intended to regulate and promote trade during the existence of the contract, provided that any prevention of work outside the contract as a whole is aimed at the receipt of the party`s services and not at their sterilization. Individual agencies are a normal and necessary business incident, and those who want the advantage of the single agency must themselves have the possibility of other agencies. There are different types of null and void agreements, and some of them are expressly declared null and void. These agreements are deemed void by law. Explicitly void agreements are considered harmful to society because they are considered contrary to public policy. These agreements are expressly cancelled under section 26-28 of the Indian Contracts Act.

Lowe v. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Restriction Act. In the present case, the defendant claimed that if he married someone other than the plaintiff, he would give her £1,000 within three months of her marriage. It has been decided that such an agreement is null and void. Some agreements are simply detrimental to society. They are contrary to public order. Some of these agreements are agreements restricting marriage, trade or legal proceedings. These agreements are expressly set aside in sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Indian Contracts Act. Although a void contract is often considered unenforceable, a contract may be considered voidable if the agreement is enforceable, but the circumstances of the agreement are questionable in nature.

This includes agreements entered into where a party has concealed information or intentionally provided inaccurate information. Failure to disclose material as required by law or to present false information may render the contract voidable, but will not automatically invalidate it. In cases where one party may terminate the contract due to the illegal or unfair (voidable) actions of the other party, the contract or agreement will become void….