Editing Contracts/Illegality

{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
An illegal agreement under the common law of contract is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a [[contract killing|contract for murder]].

However, a contract that requires only legal performance on the part of each party, such as the sale of packs of [[Playing card|cards]] to a known gambler, where [[gambling]] is illegal, will nonetheless be enforceable. A contract directly linked to the [[gambling]] act itself, such as paying off gambling debts (see [[proximate cause]]), however, will not meet the legal standards of enforceability.  Therefore, an employment contract between a [[blackjack]] [[Croupier|dealer]] and a [[speakeasy]] manager, is an example of an illegal agreement and the employee has no valid claim to his anticipated wages if gambling is illegal under that [[jurisdiction]].

In ''[[Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises]]'' (1988),<ref>''Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA3/201CA3d832.htm 201 Cal. App. 3d 832, 247 Cal. Rptr. 340] (1988).</ref> the [[California Courts of Appeal|California Court of Appeal for the Third District]] refused to enforce a contract for payment of [[promissory note]]s used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for [[public policy]] concerns.

In [[Canada]], one cited case of lack of enforceability based on illegality is ''Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell, 147 D.L.R (4th) 268 (N.S.C.A.),'' in which a woman forged her husband's signature on 40 [[cheque]]s, totalling over $58,000. To protect her from prosecution, her husband signed a letter of intent prepared by the bank in which he agreed to assume "all liability and responsibility" for the forged cheques. However, the agreement was [[unenforceable]], and was struck down by the courts, because of its essential goal, which was to "stifle a criminal prosecution". Because of the contract's illegality, and as a result voided status, the bank was forced to return the payments made by the husband.

Contracts in [[restraint of trade]] are a variety of illegal contracts and generally will not be enforced unless they are reasonable in the interests of the contracting parties and the 
public.

Contracts in restraint of trade if proved to be reasonable can be enforced.  When restraint is placed on an ex-employee, the court will consider the geographical limits, what the employee knows and the extent of the duration.  Restraint imposed on a vendor of business must be reasonable and is binding if there is a genuine seal of goodwill.  Under common law, contracts to [[Price fixing|fix prices]] are legal. ''Sole supplier'' ("solus") agreements are legal if reasonable. Contracts which contravene public policy are void.
Example:-1.Marriage with girl child is illegal
2 opening liquor shop near education institution is illigal

==Cases==
* ''[[Sinnar v. Le Roy]]'', 1954
* ''[[Homami v. Iranzadi]]'', 1989

==References==
{{Reflist}}