An agreement on the transfer of a % share of the property when it is recovered has been cancelled and is therefore void. [Nuthaki Venkatswami v. Katta Nagi] Unlike public policy, agreements that restrict the individual freedom of the parties are non-agreeable. An agreement with the intention of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable, as it is contrary to public policy. The concept of public order has attracted much criticism. The reason is that this concept is very vague. It is at risk of being abused. That is why Lord Halsbury has noticed that categories of public policy are closed and that a court cannot invent a new head of public order. Example 2: An agreement with B because of their divorce and marriage to A. Hero was abortive. Under English law, support and championship agreements are cancelled and do not refuse to go to public order. The first means financial defense or other if you have no legal interest in the object, while the championship is a good deal, if one party helps the other bias to recover the property and share the proceeds of the lawsuit.
According to English law, both are non-hazard. Example: one of them obtained a loan from a bank by mortgaged certain goods with a bank as collateral. Subsequently, it turned out that the goods were either fraudulently overvalued or withdrawn in agreement with bank employees. Agreed to remedy the shortage by giving more goods than security in the form of assumptions. But there has been some delay in the commodity hypothesis. The bank filed a complaint. However, the complaint was withdrawn by the bank after the assumption was closed. The agreement on catch-up applications applied because the compromise agreement had been reached prior to the filing of a complaint. An agreement by a borrower to perform manual work for the creditor until the debt has been fully paid is a nullity. None of the parties can impose an agreement that opposes „public policies.“ Public policy is the „politics of law.“ Whether an agreement is contrary to public policy or not must be decided solely on the basis of general principles and not on the terms of a particular contract. When a person enters into an agreement that requires him to do something that goes against his or her public duty, the agreement is not enforced because of public order.