17. The relevant figures in Section 23: e) A, B and C enter into an agreement on the fraud distribution of profits they have acquired or will be acquired. The agreement is null and forth, because its purpose is illegal. (g) As an agent of a landowner, A undertakes to receive money, without knowledge of his sponsor, to obtain for B a rent of real estate from his client. The agreement between A and B is inconclusive, as it involves fraud by concealment of its client by concealment. An illegal contract prevents contract claims when a party attempts to enforce an agreement that prohibits the law. Illegality is first and foremost used to defend rights. An illegal agreement under the common law of the treaty, is an agreement that the court will not enforce, because the purpose of the agreement is to obtain an illegal purpose. The illegal purpose must result from the performance of the contract. The classic example of such an agreement is a murder contract.
However, a contract that requires only legal benefit. B of each game, such as the sale of decks of cards to a known player in which gambling is illegal, is applicable. However, a contract directly related to the gambling law itself, such as the repayment of gambling debts (see the case close), does not meet legal standards of applicability. Therefore, an employment contract between a blackjack dealer and a talkeasy manager is an example of an illegal agreement, and the worker is not validly entitled to his wages if gambling is illegitimate under that jurisdiction. On the basis of the above, it is easy to understand that the scope and scope of Section 23 are important and that, therefore, the applicability of its provisions is subject to careful consideration by the Tribunal of the recital and purpose of an agreement and the agreement itself. Therefore, in order to introduce a case within the scope of Section 23, it must be shown that the purpose of the agreement or the review of the agreement or agreement itself is illegal. If the consideration or purpose of the agreement is illegal, it is „fraudulent“ in the eyes of the law. However, the court observed some exceptions in different precedents and focused on different occasions on the expression pacta convent quae neque contra leges neque dolo mall inita sunt omnimodo observanda sunt.