In this section, it is stated that if the consideration or objective of the contract is totally or partially illegal, the agreement must be considered inconclusive. The working philosophy underlying this section is that if the illegal clause can be dissociated from the contract, then the whole contract is not considered invalid, but only the illegal part is considered invalid and the rest of the contract is considered valid, but if the illegal clause cannot be dissociated from the legal part , then the entire contract is considered illegal.  An uncon concluded contract is a formal agreement that is virtually illegitimate and unenforceable from the date it is concluded. A no-one contract differs from a contract that may expire because, although a zero contract was never legally valid at first (and will not be enforceable later), nullity contracts may be legally applicable after correcting the underlying defects. At the same time, non-place and cancelled contracts may be cancelled for similar reasons. The only caveat is that the agreement should be reasonable depending on the nature of the transaction. This exception should only be to protect the interests of a goodie buyer. If this provision is not provided, the seller may write another transaction after the sale of his value, which will in fact attract all the customers of the buyer of the value.  A contract may be invalidated even if a change in laws or regulations occurs after an agreement has been reached, but before the contract is executed, if the previous legal activities described in the document are now considered illegal. Treaties like this therefore aim to limit human rights, which in the Constitution are linked to the nature of fundamental rights, which regard them as uneasy.
However, the awarding of contracts is null and void, which means that the contract did not exist at all and that one of the parties is not obliged to fulfil obligations related to that contract. Therefore, a person who buys another person`s business welfare has the privilege of imposing certain restrictions on that person`s activity. Restrictions are to prevent the seller from making similar transactions only within local borders. This is done to protect the rights of the buyer . However, the deduction should be proportionate depending on the nature of the transaction involved. In the case of Chandra v. Parsullah , both the complainant and the accused were to operate buses between Pune and Mahabaleswar. In order to avoid competition, the applicant purchased the defendant`s activities at the same time as an overvalue and entered into a contract that did not allow the defendant to act in the same location. However, there is a breach of the defendant`s contract. When the court was brought to trial, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, since the agreement was valid under Section 27. Therefore, any agreement that imposes restrictions on a trader`s choice of mode of activity is void. But there is a distinction between the imposition of penalties for remarriage.
The penalty for remarriage is not considered a restriction on marriage. Thus, if an agreement has been reached between two co-widows, that if one of them marries, the other must give up his share of the deceased husband`s fortune.