For example, a loan from B, a lender, obtained and agreed with B that without B`s written agreement, he would not quit his job, borrow money, cede his property or change residence. It was found that the agreement was inconclusive. For example, if you pay a certain amount to a public servant to retire to take his or her job, that agreement would not be valid. It is also illegal to enter into an agreement to terminate the prosecution in exchange for a certain amount of money. Once a complaint has been filed, no agreement can be reached to withdraw the complaint for review. Agreements that infringe on marital obligations are contrary to public policy and are non-agreeable. Any trade in enemies is contrary to public order. It is therefore illegal and not aeig. However, if a contract is concluded during the peace period and a war subsequently breaks out, one of the two things can lead to the suspension of the treaty or termination, depending on the intention of the parties. Agreements on the use of the influence of corruption in obtaining government jobs, titles or honours are illegal and therefore unenforceable.
Indeed, if such agreements are valid, corruption will increase and lead to the inefficiency of public services. Figure 1: A person `A` is convicted of murder. His friend “P” goes to court to reach an agreement to give order in favor of “A”. The same agreement is non-concluding. Example: A, a father of one daughter promised to give a certain amount of money to B, a father of a minor boy and B agreed to marry his minor son with the daughter of A. Here, the agreement is non-conclusive, since it is contrary to public order. Similarly, an agreement to pay money to the parent/caregiver of a minor, taking into account his or her assumption of giving to minors in marriage, is not entitled, as it is contrary to public policy. In India, in summary, the rule is that any partial or total withholding of marriage is absolutely non-aeig, with the exception, of course, of limiting the marriage of a minor. Unlike public policy, agreements that restrict the individual freedom of the parties are non-agreeable.
None of the parties can impose an agreement that opposes “public policies.” Public policy is the “politics of law.” Whether an agreement is contrary to public policy or not must be decided solely on the basis of general principles and not on the terms of a particular contract. “public policy”: a vague and unsatisfactory notion that must lead to uncertainty and error in its application to the rights decision; it is capable of being understood in different senses; it can and does mean “political expediency” or what is best for the common good of the Community; and in this sense, there may be any variety of opinions, depending on the education, habits, talents and inclinations of any person who must decide whether an action is contrary to public order or not.