Zero Agreement

An agreement which is not enforceable by law is called a void agreement.
• Under Section 20 of the agreement, the fact of the parties is void even if there is a mistake.
• Under Section 23 the agreement is void even if the consideration or purpose is illegal.

The agreement of doing the impossible is void under Section 56, etc. are examples of void agreement.
Here we will study about zero agreements under sections 25 to 30 of each tax.
• Section 25 – Agreement without consideration is void except when it is written and registered, or is pledged to pay compensation for anything, or promise to pay any debt owed by limitation law.
The agreement made without consideration is void, except that –

1. If an agreement is written and the time trend for registration of documents is registered under the law, due to the natural love and affection between the parties having close relationship with each other, then it will be valid even without consideration.
2. A pledge to voluntarily compensate for former service.
   Illustration – A bag of ‘B’ is found ‘A’ and gives it to him. “B” promises to give 50 rupees to A, that is the contract.
3. The pledge made for the payment of the term loan, if written and signed by the person to be charged or by his agent authorized by him in this behalf and it is made for the payment of part or full of the loan in which The lender gets the loan paid in the absence of decorum law.
   Illustration– ‘B’ is payable by Rs 1000 A but it is debited by the debt limit method. A signs a written promise to give Rs 500 to ‘B’ in the middle of that debt, it is a contract.
   Section 26. Restrictive Agreement of Marriage – “Every such agreement is void which is for the marriage of a person other than non-attainment”
   In this regard, there is a difference between Anglo law and Indian law. Where in the Anglo-law, the agreement is not void if the barrier is not complete, but in Indian law the agreement of marriage is void, even if that barrier is partial.
   Section 27- Barrier agreement of business is void -Every agreement whereby a person is barred in carrying out any lawful business or business shall be void till the extension of the barricade.

In case Madhu Chandra vs Rajkumar’s suit
The plaintiff and the defendant used to do the same business in the same locality. The defendant agreed with the plaintiff that if the plaintiff removed his shop from that locality, he would give some money.
The plaintiff removed the shop from the locality and demanded the said money but the defendant did not give the money. The plaintiff litigated. The Court held the agreement to be void under Section 27, the infringement in the suit being partial.
Thus, if an agreement prohibits a person from pursuing lawful occupation, business or business, the extent to which he holds will be void.
Exceptions– There are some exceptions to the appropriate general rule –

1. If a person makes an agreement to sell the Goodwill to the Buyer and he says that within a certain limit, the business of which the Goodwill is selling will not be traded until the Buyer or his successor is in the business. If you do, then this agreement will be valid provided that such limit seems reasonable to the court keeping in mind the nature of business.
2. If a servant or employee makes an agreement with his employer or employer that he will be in his service for a certain period and will not serve any other person during that period, then this agreement will be valid.
3. Sometimes merchants or manufacturers doing the same business or business make agreements between themselves that they will not sell their goods below the fixed price and collect the profit in a common fund or divide the profit in a fixed proportion. If we do this agreement will not be void, but if it is done to establish a monopoly, then it will be void.

Unitary Transaction– If a seller or manufacturer makes an agreement with a buyer that he will sell the goods manufactured and produced by him only to that buyer, then such agreement is called unitary transaction. If such an agreement is made to establish a monopoly or a long-term blockage, it will be void.
In the case of Sheikh Kalu vs. Ram Rasan
In Patna city, the company made an agreement with all the combs that they would not sell all the combs that they would manufacture in their lifetime. The Court held the agreement void because it was intended to establish a monopoly.
Section 28- Restrictive agreement of legal proceedings is void. It declares the following types of agreements void –

1. If an agreement prevents a party from enforcing the rights obtained under a contract or in relation to a contract by ordinary lawful proceedings in ordinary court, it is void, to the extent that it is withheld.
2. Every agreement which at the end of a specified period terminates the right of any party under or about the contract or releases it from liability in such a manner that it blocks the party from enforcing its rights. Till that expansion is zero.

Exceptions– It has the following exceptions –

1. Section 28 does not invalidate a contract whereby two or more persons enter into an agreement that the dispute arising between them shall be directed for arbitral decision and only in respect of the dispute so directed the amount that can be determined by such intermediary can be recovered.
2. Section 28 does not invalidate any written contract whereby two or more persons enter into agreement to direct a question to arbitration which has already arisen between them.
   Section 29- Agreement is void due to uncertainty – The agreement, which does not mean definite or not definable, is void.
   In case of Guthing v. Lynn’s suit A horse was purchased on the condition that if the horse is lucky, the buyer will give five pounds more. It was held to be zero based on uncertainty. The Calcutta High Court stated that in future the contract will not be formed on the basis of agreement and it cannot be enforced.
   ‘A’ who is a coconut oil practitioner, contracts to sell “one hundred tons of oil” to ‘B’. The nature of the business of “A” reflects the meaning of these words and “A” has contracted to sell one hundred tons of coconut oil. But where “A” agrees to sell “A hundred tons of oil” to “B”. There is nothing in it to show what kind of oil was intended. The agreement is void due to uncertainty.
   Section 30- Agreement of Baji (Padyam) is void. Section 30 makes it clear that the contract of acceptance of betting is void and a suit cannot be brought to recover its amount.
   There are some exceptions to this, this section does not declare the agreement to make any donation or contribution which has been made to give any plate, prize or money valued at Rs. 500 or more to the winner of Ghudaud.
   Contemporary agreement relating to betting agreement Under section 30, the betting agreement is void but not invalid, so the non-betrothal agreement related to betting agreement will be enforceable.

In case of Benimadhav Das vs Kaushal Kishore in suit
The plaintiff lent the defendant some money to pay the lost amount in gambling. The court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loaned amount.
Lottery- The agreement to give the prize money won on a lottery ticket is a betting agreement and it is void under section 30.
Its nature will not be enforced even in the event that an Act has been enacted by the Center or the State to control lottery related activities.
If a lottery is being organized with permission from the government, it will be a stake agreement and will be void as a result, the winner who won the lottery cannot institute a suit to collect the prize.