Agreements Opposed To Public Policy In Business Law
The agreements declared by the courts against public order are as follows: we have already seen earlier that an agreement with a foreign enemy is annulled. It is based on public order. A deal with an enemy should benefit the enemy. That is why these contracts were either suspended or terminated during the war. If they do not benefit the enemy, they may be suspended during the war and revived after the end of hostilities. The courts should be very careful when deciding on a matter of public policy. The teaching must be applied with the necessary variation. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Some of the agreements that oppose public order are briefly illustrated below. An agreement to deceive creditors is contrary to public policy and is non-agreeable. Agreements that infringe on marital obligations are contrary to public policy and are non-agreeable.
The concept of public order has attracted much criticism. The reason is that this concept is very vague. It is at risk of being abused. That is why Lord Halsbury has noticed that categories of public policy are closed and that a court cannot invent a new head of public order. It is a fundamental principle that “anyone who has committed a crime must be punished.” Therefore, an agreement that stifles prosecution is nullified because it is directed against public order. It is a delegation of public offices for consideration or action by civil servants in exchange for remuneration or benefit in kind. Such agreements are contrary to public order, as they are likely to encourage corruption or inefficiency among public servants. Therefore, such agreements are unst sour. A wartime agreement with a foreign enemy, if it helps or helps the enemy country`s economy, will oppose public order and will therefore be illegal. Contracts concluded before the outbreak of war are either suspended or terminated. It is clear that the opinion and interpretation of public order is broad and that, on the basis of agreement and opposition, it is to the Discretion of the Tribunal itself.
If an agreement is declared contrary to public policy, it will also be rescinded under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. If an agreement is invalidated as opposed to public policy, it cannot challenge the order of the right of citizens to enter into a contract. All agreements affecting or impeding the administration of justice are deemed null and void under section 23 of the Contract Act of 1872. The courts must carefully consider the issue before moralizing the doctrine of public order for reasons of the development of public opinion. Unlike public policy, agreements that restrict the individual freedom of the parties are non-agreeable. Agreements with voters to obtain their votes against monetary policy counterparties or with third parties to influence voters are invalid because they are opposed to public order. The duty must be accomplished. Therefore, these agreements should also increase corruption and inefficiency of public servants. Therefore, such agreements are unst sour.
An agreement to restrict the marriage of a person other than a minor is, under Section 26, not concluded and contrary to public policy. Similarly, an agreement to pay money to the parent/caregiver of a minor, taking into account his or her assumption of giving to minors in marriage, is not entitled, as it is contrary to public policy. Privy counsel in the case of Raja Venkata Subhadrayamma Guru v. Sree Pusapathi Venkapathi Raju[vi], said that the court cannot refuse to force such arrangements if the court sees that it is not made with a bonafide or reward object seems to be the subject of blackmail and maintained that Champerty and maintenance are not illegal in India.
Categorised as: 未分类