4. Misrepresentation (section 18): „which, although innocently, leads a party to enter into an agreement to make an error in the case under agreement.“ This is the first exception mentioned in paragraph 25, paragraph 1. In Rajlukhy Dabee v Bhootnath Mookerjee , the Hon`ble court held that „the written and recorded agreement based on natural love and affection between parents is enforceable without consideration.“ For example, a girl who cares for her father , one brother, The Supreme Court repeated the same thing in Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi-Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO (s). 6197 OF 2000], the Court having held that a sales contract could be oral and that a sales contract could be oral and that it could have the same binding value and applicability as a written agreement. The agreement should correspond to the essential things listed in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and therefore have the same strength of evidence as written evidence. This is mentioned in section 25, paragraph 2, of the act. Among these, the promisor executes the action to compensate in whole or in part the promise of a previous voluntary act of promise. For example, if there is a contract between A and B in which A`s pays for the care of his son, it should be noted that the service provided was not voluntary, B having a legal obligation to support his young son. In accordance with this exception, the promise must be to compensate a person who has done something for the promise, not for a person who has done nothing for the promisor . 10. Nullity Contract 2 (i): a contract is a non-negotiable contract if it is legally applicable to the choice of one or more parties (i.e.
the victim) and is not enforceable by law at the choice of another or another. The basis for the delegitimization of a trade policy agreement is the historical context of the dispute between free markets and the possibility of agreements. Guaranteeing freedom of the agreement would be tantamount to legitimize agreements to restrict trade, which would lead the parties to accept control of competition. According to common law, the current position is taken from Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a gun manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to an organization that, at that time, transferred the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. Then Thorsten agreed with Maxim that he would not participate in the assembly of weapons for a period of 25 years, apart from what he produces for the good of the organization.