In: 0

Which contracts are considered to be contrary to public policy? They should consider the general principles instead of looking at the individual terms of a contract.3 min. maintenance and collective agreement are contrary to public policy. So they`re no ath. Maintenance agreements are agreements in which a person promises to maintain an action that does not interest him or her. The Champerty agreement is an agreement whereby a person agrees to share the results of the disputes. However, some general agreements could be taken into account against public policy, such as: Privy Council in the case of Raja Venkata Subhadrayamma Guru v. Sree Pusapathi Venkapathi Raju[vi], stated that the court cannot refuse to apply such agreements if the court sees that it is not made with a bonafide or reward object seems to be extortion and considered that champerty and maintenance are not illegal. For example, a promise to compensate a company that prints and publishes a document for the consequences of any defamation it may publish in its document. Here, A`s promise could not be fulfilled if the company was forced to pay damages for defamation. In England, both agreements are illegal and unenforceable. However, in India, only agreements that appear to be entered into for gambling purposes in disputes and for breaches or to repress others, by encouraging lay litigation, are not enforced, but not all support and championship agreements are enforced. Unlike public policy, agreements that restrict the individual freedom of the parties are non-agreeable. Agreements on the use of the influence of corruption in obtaining government jobs, titles or honours are illegal and therefore unenforceable.

Indeed, if such agreements are valid, corruption will increase and lead to the inefficiency of public services. An agreement is not considered legal if it is contrary to public policy. The doctrine of public order is based on the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio,” meaning that an agreement against public order would have no effect. The term “public policy” does not have a comprehensive definition of its fluctuating nature and is highly uncertain. The interpretation of public order is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. Contractual terms cannot be enforced even if they have been agreed by both parties, if they are contrary to public policy. An agreement to restrict the marriage of persons who do not have minors is null and void. The law does not require everyone to marry. But if someone agrees not to marry at all, it is contrary to public order and therefore not abundant. Moreover, an agreement in which a person agrees not to marry a particular person is as null as against the example of public order: a paid B, a civil servant a certain amount of money that encourages him to withdraw from the service, thus paving the way for the appointment of A in his place.