On the other hand, non-binding contracts are agreements for which the contract is considered (legally) to have existed, but no recourse is granted. The treaty remains in force. For Section 23 cases, it is appropriate to review or verify whether the section declares the agreement illegal because of rebuttal or consideration. The three points mentioned above, i.e. (i) the consideration of the agreement, (ii) the purpose of the agreement and (iii) the agreement must also be taken into account, and the three principles that flow from the section – (i) an agreement or contract is cancelled if its purpose is to initiate an illegal action; (ii) if a law expressly or implicitly prohibits it and (iii) if its execution is not possible without disobedience to a law. The general rule is that the facts of illegality must be invoked and, if one of the parties challenges an agreement as unenforceable. B, for example as contrary to public policy, it is for him to expose and prove the particular circumstances that invalidate the contract.  This part of the Contracts Act speaks of an inconclusive agreement, but it must be remembered that there is a very small distinction between illegal and non-contractual contracts. To understand the concept of “legal” and “illegal” contracts, let`s take a few examples, A entered into a contract with B for the sale of a house of Rs 11.00,000, and A and B both fulfilled their obligations.
It is a valid contract between A and B. Let`s take another example: A and B have entered into the contract to sell a house, but it is used to store weapons prohibited by law. This is an illegal contract that is not applicable by the court. It is now apparent from the above examples that not all contracts between the parties are valid, there are some fundamental elements that make the contract illegal or illegal. So the question is: what makes the treaty illegal? people who receive a response in this article. A contract is an agreement that explicitly defines the rights of the parties to perform an act that each party must perform, while respecting certain limits on their behalf. It also serves as evidence when an action is to be proven in court. In this section, the words “void,” “object” and “consideration” can be read. There may not be a void object as such, but it can be considered a null contract with an illegal object that is cancelled.  Similarly, there can be no “non-counterpart” as such, but it can be considered a null contract with an illegal consideration that can be cancelled.  This section deals with the illegality of the two – the purpose of the contract and the consideration.  For example: If money has been lent for the marriage of the minor, the consideration for the contract is credit and the object is marriage, the Madras High Court found that the purpose refutes the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act.
The word “object” in section 23 is not used in the same sense as “reflection,” but has been used as a distinctive agent of respect and means “purpose” or “design.”  The section invalidates an agreement whose objections or considerations are unlawful.