As a professional, I have had the opportunity to work on articles related to various legal concepts. One such concept that needs a closer look is the distinction between void agreements and voidable contracts.
A void agreement is an agreement that is not enforceable by law, and therefore, it is considered void right from the start. In other words, it is as if the agreement never existed. A void agreement is not legally binding, and no party to the agreement can sue the other party for non-performance or breach of contract. Examples of void agreements include an agreement made with a minor, an agreement that is illegal, an agreement made under coercion, etc.
On the other hand, a voidable contract is a contract that may be enforceable by law but can be avoided (canceled or rescinded) at the option of one or more parties, at any time before it is ratified or affirmed. The party who has the option to avoid the contract is said to have the right of repudiation. Examples of voidable contracts include contracts entered into with a person who is mentally incapacitated, contracts entered into under undue influence, contracts entered into by fraud, etc.
To understand the difference between a void agreement and a voidable contract, it is important to note that a void agreement cannot be enforced by law, while a voidable contract has the potential to be enforced but can be avoided under certain circumstances.
It is important to note that, in general, a void agreement or a voidable contract cannot be ratified or made valid by any act of the parties or the court, except in a few exceptional cases.
In conclusion, while it is easy to confuse a void agreement with a voidable contract, the distinction between the two is quite clear. A void agreement is not enforceable by law and is considered void right from the start, while a voidable contract is potentially enforceable, but can be avoided under certain circumstances. Being aware of this distinction is crucial for anyone navigating the legal world.