An Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage Is Valid In Case Of Following Persons

(b) An oral promise to pay a prescribed debt is valid DESCRIPTION OF THE ROAD: the question consists of proposals/principles (hereinafter referred to as „principle“) and facts. These principles must be applied to the established facts in order to reach the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense of the word, but you must consistently consider that they are true. In other words, to answer the following question, you cannot rely on any principle, except the principle set out below. In addition, you should not accept facts other than those mentioned in the question. The purpose of this section is to test your interest in law school, your aptitude for research and your problem-solving ability. 20. The consideration or the object of an agreement is considered illegal when it constitutes one of the essential conditions for the constitution of a contract that it must be cancelled. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act states that „all agreements are contracts. which are not expressly cancelled“. A contract can be void for several reasons, for example: in general, such a service agreement is not considered a restriction at all, as it gives the freedom to marry in the event of termination of employment. On the other hand, if the agreement between A and B and A promises not to marry before the age of 35 in return for employment under B, it would be considered a restriction on marriage and would be void.

Scott-Smith, J. „To impose such a custom would be to say that an adult woman cannot marry a man unless the man pays a large sum, which might be impossible for him, to his closest male relative. It would be customary to restrict marriage and go against the principle of section 26 of the Contracts Act. The delegitimization of a trade restriction agreement can be explained by the history of the conflict between free markets and freedom of treaties. Guaranteeing freedom of contract would be tantamount to legitimize trade restriction agreements, which would lead the parties to agree to curb competition. According to the Common Law, the current position is derived from the case of -16. A agrees to pay RS.50,000 to B if it kills C. Unlike Article 28, which only closes agreements with a total limitation of judicial proceedings, the choice of terms of Article 26 retains its rather general scope, without distinguishing between a partial or total limitation of marriage, and has been interpreted in such a way that an agreement serving to surrender either is considered null and void. .

. .