The Agreement Is Opposed To Public Policy

Figure 2: A person “A” is convicted of murder and “B” is the witness. If an agreement is made with “B” to change his testimony / not appear in court, it is illegal and not airy. However, certain general agreements could be envisaged against public policy, such as: in Veerayya v. Sobhanandri[vii], a person who reached an agreement to withdraw the indictment from page 420 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 against the accused. It was found that, since the infringement was cumulative, authorisation from the General Court is required and that, consequently, the agreement was annulled. In the case of Ouseph Poulo v La Banque catholique Ag [viii], two parties also concluded an agreement to close the criminal proceedings against a given counterparty, finding that this type of transaction was intended for public order. The difference between maintenance agreements and champerty agreements lies in their purpose. The purpose of the maintenance contract is to promote or stir up disputes, while the same, in the Champerty agreement, is to share the proceeds of the dispute. If, in an agreement, the counterparty commits an offence, the agreement is contrary to public policy and is not in conformity with public policy. Similarly, an agreement to exempt a person from the consequences of his criminal act is not applicable, as it recognizes public order. In the event of an agreement reached by a person by which he is obliged to do something that is his public duty, the agreement of the order is not concluded.

For example, an agent`s agreement to make secret profits is not valid because it is a matter of public order. In principle, it is assumed that a treaty or act is contrary to public order if it leads to an offence against the law, harms citizens or harms the State. On the whole, public policy means that courts sometimes invalidate a contract because it is contrary to the common good. An agreement concluded for the purpose of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable because it is a matter of public policy. In England, both agreements are illegal and unenforceable. However, in India, only agreements that appear to have been entered into for gambling purposes in litigation and to violate or repress others by promoting ungodly disputes are not enforced, but not all maintenance and champerty agreements. . . .

Comments are closed.