AN ANALYSIS OF

VOID AGREEMENTS
Under Indian Contracts Act, 1872

Name:- Rashmi Rekha Bora

st
1 Semester, Section- B, Roll- 42

MIES R.M. Law College

Sahebpara, Sonarpur, Kolkata-700150
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction..................................... 1
2. Concept of Agreement.................... 2
3. Void Agreement and
voidable contract............................. 4
4. Nature of Void
agreement........................................ 6
5. Void Agreements under
Indian Contract Act......................... 7
6. Role of Judiciary............................. 10
7. Conclusion...................................... 16
8. Bibliography................................... 17
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Presentation, inspiration and motivation have always played a key role in the success
of any venture.

I am immensely obligated and feel to acknowledge my indebtedness and deep sense

of recognition to my guide Prof. Soumik Ash, whose valuable guidance and kind
supervision given to me throughout this project shaped the present work at its show.

I also express my sincere thanks and gratitude to our respected Principal of MIES
R.M. Law College, Mr Ullash Kr. Saha, to encourage me to the highest peak and
provide me the golden opportunity to prepare the project on the topic “An Analysis
of Void Agreements”

Rashmi Rekha Bora

Introduction:
A contract means an agreement which is enforceable by law. An agreement
consists of reciprocal promises between two parties. In case of a contract, each
party is legally bound by the promise made by him. In India, the Law governing
contracts is the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It came into force on September 1,
1872 and is extended to the whole of India except to the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.

The Act has 238 sections altogether. Sections 1 to 75 came into force on
September 1, 1872.

The term 'Contract' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. It defines the Contract as an agreement enforceable by law.
An agreement cannot become a contract unless it can be enforceable by law. To
be enforceable by law, a contract must contain all the essential elements of a valid
contract as defined in Section 10.

According to Section 10, "All agreements are contracts, if they are made by the
free consent of the parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration, with
a lawful object and are not expressly declared by the Act to be void.

Essential Elements of a Contract as defined in Section 10 of the Indian Contract

Act 1872 are as follows-

1. Agreement - Offer and Acceptance

2. Legal purpose
3. Lawful Consideration
4. Capacity to contract
5. Consent to contract
6. Lawful object
7. Certainity
8. Possibility of Performance
9. Not expressly declared void
10. Legal formalities like Writing, Registration etc.

All the above ingredients must be satisfied in every valid contract. It can be noted
that all contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.

1
Concept of Agreement
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines the term “Contract” under its section 2 (h)
as “An agreement enforceable by law”. In other words, we can say that a contract
is anything that is an agreement and enforceable by the law of the land.

This definition has two major elements in it viz – “agreement” and “enforceable
by law”. So in order to understand a contract in the light of The Indian Contract
Act, 1872 we need to define and explain these two pivots in the definition of a
contract.

Agreement

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines “Agreement” in its section 2 (e).
“Agreement” has been defined as “every promise and every set of promises,
forming the consideration for each other”.

An analysis of the definition reveals that the term “Promise” has not been defined
and hence, may lead to ambiguity. To eliminate this problem, the term promise
has been further defined under section 2(b) as “when the person to whom the
proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.
Proposal when accepted, becomes a promise”.

As per the definition, an agreement is an accepted promise, accepted by all the

parties involved in the agreement or affected by it. This definition thus introduces
a flow chart or a sequence of steps that need to be triggered in order to establish
or draft a contract. The steps may be described as under:

 The definition requires a person to whom a certain proposal is made.

 The person (parties) in step one have to be in a position to fully understand
all the aspects of a proposal.
 “signifies his assent thereto” – means that the person in point one accepts
or agrees with the proposal after having fully understood it.
 Once the “person” accepts the proposal, the status of the proposal changes
to “accepted proposal”.
 “accepted proposal” becomes a promise. Note that the proposal is not a
promise. For the proposal to become a promise, it has to be accepted first.

Thus, in other words, an agreement is obtained from a proposal. Once the

proposal, made by one or more of the participants affected by the proposal, is
accepted by all the parties, it becomes an agreement.
2
Enforceable By Law

Now let us try to understand this aspect of the definition as is present in the Act.
Suppose a person agrees to sell the Tajmahal for one crore rupees to a friend. Can
they have a contract for this? It can be argued that once two persons agree on the
promise, it becomes an agreement. But in order to be a contract as per the
definition of the Act, the agreement has to be legally enforceable.

Thus we can say that for an agreement to change into a Contract as per the Act,
it must give rise to or lead to legal obligations or in other words, must be within
the scope of the law. Thus we can summarize it as Contract = Accepted Proposal
(Agreement) + Enforceable by law (defined within the law)

3
Void Agreement and voidable Contract
As per section 2 (h) of Indian Contract Act, contract has been defined as “An
agreement enforceable by law”. Therefore any agreement which is not
enforceable by law can’t be termed as contract. Continuing with the previous
example of a person entering into a contract to sell the moon, we can safely
assume that such an agreement will be a void agreement ab initio.

However there are instances where a contract is originally considered to be legal

and enforceable, but can be rejected by one party if the contract is discovered to
have defects. If a party with the power to reject the contract chooses not to reject
the contract despite the defect, the contract remains valid and enforceable. Most
often, only one of the parties is adversely affected by agreeing to a voidable
contract in which that party fails to recognize the misrepresentation or fraud made
by the other party.

Therefore as we can see, when dealing with contracts, the terms "void" and
"voidable" are often confused. To understand them fully, here are the definitions
of each one as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872-

Void Agreement- As per Section 2(g), “an agreement not enforceable by law is
said to be void”. The agreements which have been expressly declared void by the
act are as follows-

 Agreement of which the consideration or the object is not lawful. (Sec

23,24)
 Agreement without consideration. (Sec 25)
 Agreement in restraint of marriage. (Sec 26)
 Agreement in restraint of trade. (Sec 27)
 Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. (Sec 28)
 Agreement which is ambiguous and uncertain. (Sec 29)
 Agreement by way of wager. (Sec 30)
 Agreement to do an impossible act. (Sec 56)

Voidable Contract- As per Section 2(i) of the Act: “An agreement which is
enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at
the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract.”

A voidable contract is a Valid Contract. In a voidable contract, at least one of the

parties has to be bound to the terms of the contract. The other party is not bound
and may choose to repudiate or accept the terms of the contract. If they so choose

4
to repudiate the contract, the contract becomes void. Otherwise, a voidable
contract is a valid contract.
The following table shows the differences between the two-
Void Contract
“A contract which ceases to be
enforceable by law becomes void
when it ceases to be enforceable”.
A contract becomes void if either it
lacks the essential elements, the law
changes drastically or the terms of
the contract change such that it is no
longer possible to enforce the
contract in a court of law.
Void contracts can’t be fulfilled.
This type of contract can’t grant any
rights or considerations to any of the
involved parties.
Voidable Contract
“An agreement which is enforceable
by law at the option of one or more
of the parties thereto, but not at the
option of the other or others, is a
voidable contract.”
A contract becomes a voidable
contract when at least one of the
parties reserves its consent or the
consent of one of the parties was not
free at the time of the formation of
the contract.
The validity and enforceability of
the voidable contract depend on the
choice of the unbound party. If the
unbound party decides to repudiate
the contract it becomes void.
The right to rescind a voidable
contract is retained by the unbound
party.
5
Nature of Void agreement
A void contract cannot be enforced by law. However, when a contract is being
written and signed, there is no automatic mechanism available in every situation
that can be utilized to detect the validity or enforceability of that contract.
Practically, a contract can be declared to be void by a court of law. So the main
question is that under what conditions can a contract be deemed as void?

An agreement to carry out an illegal act is an example of a void agreement. For

example, a contract between drug dealers and buyers is a void contract simply
because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go
to court to enforce the contract. A void agreement is void ab initio, i.e. from the
beginning. In sum, there is no scope of any discretion on the part of the
contracting parties in a void contract. The contracting parties do not have the
power to make a void contract enforceable.

A contract can also be void due to the impossibility of its performance. For
instance, if a contract is formed between two parties A & B but during the
performance of the contract the object of the contract becomes impossible to
achieve (due to action by someone or something other than the contracting
parties), then the contract cannot be enforced in the court of law and is thus void.
A void contract can be one in which any of the prerequisites of a valid contract
is/are absent for example if there is no contractual capacity, the contract can be
deemed as void. In fact, void means that a contract does not exist at all. The law
cannot enforce any legal obligation to either party especially the disappointed
party because they are not entitled to any protective laws as far as contracts are
concerned.

The Indian Contract Act contains certain sections which have discussed void
contracts in detail which we are going to discuss next.

6
Void Agreements under Indian Contract Act
There are some agreements which have been specifically declared as void by
Indian Contract Act. Even if such agreements satisfy the conditions of a valid
contract, they are not enforceable. The agreement which have been declared void
by the Act are as follows-

 Agreement of which the consideration or the object is not lawful. (Sec

23,24)

Section 23 of the Act defines what consideration and objects are lawful, and
what are not. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless—
" it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat
the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the
person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed
to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an
agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or
consideration is unlawful is void.

Section 24 of the Act states that, agreements are void, if considerations and
objects are unlawful in part. If any part of a single consideration for one or
more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for
a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.

 Agreement without consideration. (Sec 25)

Section 25 of the Act states that an agreement made without consideration is

void, unless-

a) it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in
force for the registration of 1[documents], and is made on account of
natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to
each other; or unless
b) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already
voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the
promisor was legally compellable to do; or unless.
c) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged
therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf,
to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced
payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.

In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.

7
Agreement in restraint of marriage. (Sec 26)

Section 26 of the Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of

marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void. The Contract
Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such
agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either
of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind
this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry
as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both
personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered
into at any point of time.

 Agreement in restraint of trade. (Sec 27)

Section 27 of the Act states that every agreement by which any one is
restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind,
is to that extent void. However there is an exception noted in the Act-

Exception --Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which goodwill

is sold.—One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer
to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits,
so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him,
carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court
reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In other words, the
Act allows Non-compete clause.

 Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. (Sec 28)

Section 28 of the Act states that every agreement, by which any party thereto
is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any
contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which
limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to the
extent. However there are a couple of exception built into the law.
Exception 1- This section shall not render a contract illegal, by which two or
more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect
of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only
the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the
dispute so referred.

Exception 2 - Nor shall this section render illegal any contract in writing, by
which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question between

8
them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any law in force for
the time being as to references to arbitration.

 Agreement which is ambiguous and uncertain. (Sec 29)

Section 29 of the Act states that agreements, the meaning of which is not
certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. This section implies that
contracts which are too vaguely written, or incapable to ascertaining certainty
is void ab initio.

 Agreement by way of wager. (Sec 30)

Section 30 of the Act states that agreements by way of wager are void; and
no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any
wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other
uncertain event on which any wager is made.

Exception- This section shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription

or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into
for or toward any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value or amount of five
hundred rupees or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner or winners of any
horse-race. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to legalize any
transaction connected with horse-racing, to which the provisions of section
294A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) apply.

 Agreement to do an impossible act. (Sec 56)

Section 56 of the Act states that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself

is void. Also a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes
impossible, or, by reason of some event which the Promisor could not
prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or
unlawful.

Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with
reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not
know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation
to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-
performance of the promise.

9
Role of Judiciary
As we can see, the Contract Act makes an exhaustive list of Void agreements.
However over time, there have been numerous cases where the judiciary has ruled
on the various aspects of the Void contract. Various relevant sections have been
discussed in detail in such judgments, which makes understanding the law easier.
Some of such cases studies are discussed next.

 Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others on 26 March,

1959

The appellant, Gherulal Parakh, and the first respondent, Mahadeodas Maiya,
managers of two joint families entered into a partnership to carry on wagering
contracts with two firms of Hapur, namely, Messrs. Mulchand Gulzarimull
and Baldeosahay Surajmull. It was agreed between the partners that the
said contracts would be made in the name of the respondents on behalf of the
firm and that the profit and loss resulting from the transactions would be borne
by them in equal shares. In implementation of the said agreement, the first
respondent entered into 32 contracts with Mulchand and 49 contracts with
Baldeosahay and the nett result of all these transactions was a loss, with the result
that the first respondent had to pay to the Hapur merchants the entire
amount due to them. As the appellant denied his liability to bear his share of
the loss, the first respondent along with his sons filed O. S. No. 18 of 1937 in the
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Darjeeling, for the recovery of half of the loss
incurred in the transactions with Mulchand.

The case reached the Supreme Court of India on appeals and the court in its
judgment S.C.R. 874. dated 26/03/1959 discussed the case as per the Sections 23
and 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and observed-

“ The problem presented, with its different facets, is whether the said agreement
of partnership is unlawful within the meaning of s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 23 of the said Act, omitting portions unnecessary for the present purpose,
reads as follows :

" The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-

it is forbidden by law, or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public

policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be

unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is

10
void." Under this section, the object of an agreement, whether it is of partnership
or otherwise, is unlawful if it is forbidden by law or the Court regards it as
immoral or opposed to public policy and in such cases the agreement itself is
void.”

 Percept D’Markr (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr. (Appeal
(civil) 5573-5574 of 2004)

Defendant entered into a contract for management of his media affairs with the
plaintiff company on the term that prior to the completion of first negotiation
period and thereafter, plaintiff will have the ‘right of first refusal’ in regard to any
offer for services of management of media affairs received by defendant; such
that defendant cannot accept any third party offer without offering plaintiff right
to match the offer on same terms and in plaintiff’s failing to do so. However,
defendant entered into an agreement with third party after the termination of the
said agreement and plaintiff claimed permanent injunction.

ISSUE: Whether the covenant was in restraint of trade u/s 27 and hence void?

CONTENTION (plaintiff):

If the plaintiff failed to match the third party offer, defendant was free to negotiate
with the third party; if the plaintiff however matched the offer, defendant suffered
no detriment. In either case, defendant was not restrained and was not suffering.
Further, the contract was one of agency and not of employer-employee
relationship such that it was unaffected by inequality of bargaining power.

HELD:

The contract of agency as one entered here between the parties is of personal in
nature such that forcing the negative covenant will mean compelling the
defendant to get his affairs managed by the plaintiff company even after the initial
agreement has not been breached and has been lawfully terminated; this will be
in restrain of his right to trade with any person in any manner he chooses. So long
as it is sought to enforce the covenant while the subsisting of the agreement it is
valid, but the moment it is sought to be enforced after the contract has been
terminated, it will be violative of S.27 and hence, void and unenforceable.

11
  Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Limited v Axis Bank Limited on 14-10-
2008

Since March 2008, Axis Bank and Rajshree Sugars have been fighting a legal
battle over the foreign exchange derivatives contract, sold by the Bank to the
company, thereby resulting in huge losses for the company estimated to be around
Rs.46-50 crores. The company had refused to make any loan repayment to the
bank contending that the contract was a wagering deal, and hence untenable on
such grounds. The Madras High Court answered this issue in the negative. Based
on the elucidations of various landmark judgments on wagers, the court evolved
a threefold test to determine whether the contract is a wager - First, there must be
two persons Holding opposite views touching a future uncertain event; second,
one of those parties is to win and the other is to lose upon the determination of
the event; third, both the parties have no actual interest in the occurrence or non-
occurrence of the event, but have an interest only on the stake. The case in
question fulfilled the first criteria, but the second was not satisfied because in the
light of the facts of the case, the plaintiff did not always stand to lose. Citing
Indian case law, the judges make an interesting observation, that though every
wagering contract is speculative in nature, every speculation need not necessarily
be a wager. Further, a common intention to wager is essential, and an element of
mutuality has to be present in the sense that the gain of one party would be the
loss of the other on the happening of the uncertain event which is the subject
matter of wager.
In the light of above mentioned points and also adhering to the Supreme Court
judgment in Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya,[xliv] the Judges in this case
concluded that the sequence of events in the present case reflected that the nature
of the transaction was not in the form of a wager. Even though the plaintiff was
susceptible to incurring huge losses yet that by itself could not deem the contract
to be a wager.

Suggestions and Conclusion

As section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 reads about agreements by way of
wager, void. Further The Contract Act does not define what constitutes a wager
or a wagering agreement. It only mentions that such agreements will be void and
unenforceable and no action can lie to either recover anything that is due under a
wager or for performance of a contract that is in the nature of a wager. A wager
is in the nature of a contingent contract but is prevented from being enforceable
by Section 30.Therefore, the Contract Act should provide an express definition
that would clarify as to what constitutes a wager, thereby removing any ambiguity
with regard to legality of derivative contracts which are in the nature of wagering

12
agreements. Also through the, in depth analysis of various cases, books and views
of the learned scholars in this project it can be said that Section 30 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872 needs to be reviewed critically. Hence Section 30 should be
amended to define the word wager. Since a lot of inconvenience and ambiguity
have been faced by the judiciary while dealing with the issue of wagers,
specifically as to what all constitute wagers and what all comes under the ambit
of wagers. As different jurists and in different judgments the ambit of wagers is
defined in different ways. In other words the scope of section30 needs to be
widened

 V.L. Narasu v. P.S.V. Iyer (AIR 1953 Mad 300)

Defendant contracted with plaintiff to screen latter’s film in his cinema house
until the net collection fall below some stipulated amount. Later there were
unprecedented heavy rains which made a wall of cinema house to collapse owing
to some latent defects, leading to death of three persons. There were inspections
going on, licenses were suspended, and orders for demolition of theatre were also
given. In view of alleged ‘impossibility’ of performance the contract was
abrogated by defendant.

ISSUES:

Whether the liability undertaken was absolute and in consequence of which,

defendant must be held liable for damages for breach of warranty; or whether
there has been frustration of contract so as to discharge him from his obligations
thereunder u/s 56?
Whether it was self-induced frustration brought about by conduct of defendant
such that he will be held liable for breach of contract u/s 39?

HELD:

Where parties bind themselves by absolute and positive obligations under a

contract which, to their knowledge, is dependent for the possibility of its
performance on the continued availability of the subject matter (either a thing or,
a person as in personal contracts) and that availability comes to an unforeseen
end by reason of circumstances over which its owner had no control, the owner
is not bound in the absence of any express or implied warranty that the subject
matter will continue to exist, unless he intends so either from express provisions
of the contract or from the surrounding circumstances. (Taylor v. Caldwell) The
principle of Taylor case is not limited to a specific thing, which formed the subject
matter of contract, perished before its execution, rather has been extended to such
13
a vital change of circumstances as to render the contract unreal (Alope v. State of
UP). In such cases, the contract, though in terms absolute, must be construed as
being subject to an implied condition that if before breach, performance becomes
impossible due to an unforeseen event, without default of either party, the parties
are to be excused from further performance.

In present case, as implied from express provisions of contract, the continued

existence of theatre was the fundamental basis on which parties contracted. It is
also established that it had become impossible to screen the movie any longer in
view of cancelled licenses and demolition orders, events which were not in
contemplation of parties when they so contracted and were totally unforeseen
over which defendant had no control. There was neither any implied warranty for
the continued existence of the theatre nor any positive obligation of defendant to
be bound by contract in such fundamentally altered circumstances. Hence, there
was implied a condition that the agreement should terminate in case licenses are
cancelled or theatre ceases to exist without the default of any party.

S.39: Reliance cannot be placed by defendant on ‘self-induced’ frustration;

indeed such conduct gives the other party to treat the contract as repudiated and
claim for damages. A party is faulty in ‘self-inducing frustration’ if the act or
omission which results in frustration is deliberate and intentional on its part and
not merely ‘passive negligence’. Conduct must amount to repudiation of the
contract as u/s 39: either from express words making clear the intention of the
party not to perform the contract or conduct from which such intention could be
implied. Therefore, mere negligent act or omission doesn’t amount to repudiation
and it must be to such a degree that the intention of the party not to perform his
obligations could be deduced. Therefore, the combined effect of S.56 and S.39 is
that frustration renders a contract void, unless there has been a conduct antecedent
to frustration amounting to repudiation thereof. Once defendant has established
frustration, the onus lies on plaintiff to show that the frustration was ‘self
induced’.

In present case, firstly, there were several construction defects as pointed out but
they were latent, secondly, there was unprecedented rainfall on the day when
mishap took place, thirdly, nothing was alleged to be done or omitted to be done
by defendant to intentionally repudiate a contract. Hence, plaintiff hasn’t
discharged his burden to prove deliberate omission on part of defendant to take
due care to maintain the safety standard in theatre, such that there was no “self-
induced frustration” as alleged.

There can be no frustration unless the change in circumstances is: 1) of a

permanent nature so as to render the contract impossible to be performed on any
future date or, 2) of fundamental nature or, 3) of such a duration, so as to make

14
the contract, when resumed, a different one from the original contract. Nature of
contract and surrounding circumstances are to be taken into account while
applying the aforementioned test.

In present case, there was no obligation of the defendant to construct a new theatre
in accordance with statutory requirements as immediately after its demolition.
Further, the gap of two years which took the completion of theatre made the
contract, if to be resumed, altogether different from the original one, for the
screening of the same film which had released before two years or more was not
commercially viable for the defendant and would no longer drew crowds.
Therefore, in present case, nature of the contract made any duration for which it
would have been subsisting a really short one.

15
Conclusion
Contract act plays an important role in our everyday life. It is difficult to carry on
any trade, business or any activity without contract act. It effects not only business
men but everybody. The aim of the contract act is to ensure that rights and
remedies are honoured which are raised by contract. Contract act lays down
conditions for parties to enter into contract. Agreements cover both offer and
acceptance and it is essential for making a contract. All contracts are agreements
but all agreements are not contracts, only those agreements are contract which
fulfills the conditions of
Section 10.

Now it is an accepted fact that contract is changing due to privatization,

industrialization, urbanization and globalization. Many new terms have come in
contract for example e-contract, escrow agreement, joint venture agreement,
contract farming, outsourcing contracts etc. All forms of E-Contracts ought to be
made as conspicuous as possible to satisfy legal standards of notice of terms. Its
binding legal nature must work upon the end-user, and browse-wrap notices must
ideally only be supplemental to a contract that the user has already manifested his
assent to.

In the present scenario, it is becoming more and more important to understand

the nuances of the Act. Understanding the legality of the contract is of paramount
importance as it can lead to serious consequences for all the parties involved. The
subtle differences between a void and voidable contracts should also be studied
and understood.

16
Bibliography

Books

 Dr R.K Bangia, Contract-I, 6th Edition, 2015, Allahabad

act Agency, Haryana (P 3-4, P 224-252)
 Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Bare Act)

Websites
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/voidable-
contract.asp
 https://www.actnotes.in/Indian_Contract_Act,_1872
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Contract_Act,_1872
 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=indian+cont
ract+act+1872

17