The concept of public order in the broadest sense implies a restriction on the freedom of persons to do something in the best interests or for the good of the Community. Under india`s Contracts Act, it limits contractual freedom in certain areas that undermine public order. An agreement is a non-endorsement if the law considers it in opposition to public order. For example, the production or sale of excised goods is prohibited by the excise law, except with a state license. The sale of unlicensed spirits is therefore prohibited by the Excise Act and is therefore illegal. A contract entered into in violation of a legal prohibition is null and void, whether it is an explicit or implied prohibition. In summary, all agreements that involve a violation of laws protecting or promoting the public interest are invalid. As in the first place, contracts between unmarried persons for cohabitation were deemed unenforceable and illegal for the promotion of immorality. To Fender v. John-Mildmay it was found that an immoral promise between a single man and an unmarried woman to live together without marriage could not be imposed by law. Such an agreement was deemed illegal because of immorality.
But over time, the law has changed, and now unmarried men and women have permission to live together and maintain a domestic relationship without marrying. But “extramarital” cohabitation is still considered immoral and therefore unenforceable. With the Interest Act of 1978 and taking into account the importance of morality in trade agreements, the Tribunal understood that the extent of immorality could no longer be limited to the case of immoral sexual contracts, but that it should also be extended to the interpretation of immorality in trade agreements. Illegal withholding of money and non-payment of interest over a long period of time have not been found to be justified by the judge in today`s world. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that all contractual agreements involving the holding of the principal money or the interest payable to the other party for a very long period of time were immoral, which led to the impratibility of such agreements. The California Court of Appeals for the Third District refused to execute an agreement on the payment of debt notes used to acquire the organization of the drugs and similar products. Although the items sold were not in fact illegal, the court refused to comply with the agreement on public policy grounds. Illegal contracts are unenforceable and it is not possible to take legal action if a party violates an illegal treaty.
If we look at our example of the poker merchant`s employment contract in a country where gambling is illegal, if the employer does not pay his salary to the poker dealer, the poker dealer would not be able to take legal action against the employer and could end up losing those wages. For example, in one person borrowed Rs.100, and in recital, a loan in favor of the lender, also executed by the applicant in this case. The person in the loan promised to work for him for two years, without him agreeing to pay a very exorbitant interest rate and the amount of capital at the same time. It was found that the contract was null and void, because the promise contained in the loan would amount to slavery on the part of the defendant, damaging both to a person and illegally. Children, people with mental disabilities and seniors with dementia are some examples of parties that may not be able to understand and enter into a legal contract. Another case dealing with the issue of a gift that was enforceable or not was Istak Kamu Musalman and Ghelabhai Nanji Shet Gujarathi Vs.