CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Consideration and Legality of Object
Ramesh promises to drop a criminal prosecution he has instituted against Suresh for robbery, and Suresh promises to restore the value of the goods taken. What is the legal position of this agreement?
The agreement is void because its object is unlawful. Under Section 23, agreeing to drop a prosecution for robbery in return for restoring the stolen goods defeats the course of law. Mutual promises do not make it valid when the object is unlawful.
- AValid, because Suresh is only restoring what he took
- BVoid, because its object is unlawfulCorrect
- CVoidable at the option of Suresh
- DValid, because both parties made promises
Explanation
This matches the illustration to Section 23. Dropping a prosecution for robbery is an unlawful object, so the agreement is void. Mutual promises do not save it, because the object itself is unlawful.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Consideration and Legality of Object shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Consideration and Legality of Object questions
- Under the definition of consideration in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the act, abstinence or promise forming consideration…
- Which of the following agreements would be void because its consideration or object is unlawful under Section 23?
- Ravi sells goods to Sunil on credit and delivers them. Later, Tarun, without any request to Ravi to forbear and without receiving anything, …
- Ravi promises to pay Sunil Rs 1,00,000 a year to supervise a lawful textile business and also an illegal trade in other goods. Sunil agrees.…
- Gupta & Sons agrees to pay Neha ₹12,000 a month to supervise its lawful packaging unit and also to help conceal its sales from the tax autho…
- Under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, what is the legal effect when any part of a single consideration for one or more objects …