No agreement contrary to “public policy” may be applied by either party. Public policy is the “politics of the law”. The question whether or not an agreement is contrary to public policy must be transsible only on the basis of general principles and not by taking into account contractual conditions. The duty must be done. Therefore, such agreements should also increase corruption and inefficiency among public officials. Therefore, such agreements are inconclusive. The difference between maintenance agreements and champerty agreements lies in their purpose. The purpose of the maintenance contract is to promote or stir up disputes, while the same, in the Champerty agreement, is to share the proceeds of the dispute. It is an agreement in which either party or third party receives a certain amount of money against marriage. Such agreements, which are in favour of public order, are inexigable. Marriage mediation is the sum of money agreed upon by a party to obtain a person`s marriage. Such agreements are not concluded because they are contrary to public policy, for example. B an agreement to sell a girl.
An agreement to do something that goes against professional obligation is contrary to public policy and not agreeable. Agreements that tend to create monopolies are contrary to public policy and are therefore invalid. However, in areas such as vegetables, monopoly rights may be granted to a person who excludes others. Guardianship rights may not be sold or transferred in the public interest. The interests of children/communities should be adequately protected. As a result, the law has conferred this power on parents of children. The father is the legal guardian of his minor child. In the absence of the father, this right passes to the mother. Courts should be very careful when ruling on a matter of public policy. Teaching must be applied with the necessary variation.
Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts. Some of the agreements contrary to public policy are briefly explained below with the help of examples. Since the monopoly is opposed to public policy, an agreement to create a monopoly is not concluded. It is a fundamental principle that “someone who has committed a crime must be punished”. Therefore, an agreement suffocating prosecution is null and void and goes against public order. It is clear that the scope and interpretation of public policy are broad and that applicability is left to the discretion of the General Court itself on the basis of the agreement and subject-matter. .