Which of the Following Is a Void Agreement? Meaning, Examples, and MCQ Guide

Which of the following is a void agreement is a common business law and legal reasoning question, and the short answer is this: a void agreement is an agreement not enforceable by law. Under Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, that is the core legal meaning of the term. In simple words, if the law does not recognize an agreement as enforceable, it is void.

For students, this keyword usually appears in MCQ form. So if the options include an agreement with no legal effect, an agreement not enforceable by law, or an agreement that is void from the outset, that is normally the correct direction. But to answer confidently in exams, you also need to know the most common categories of void agreements under the Act, including restraint of marriage, restraint of trade, restraint of legal proceedings, uncertainty, wagering, and impossible acts.

Direct Answer: Which of the Following Is a Void Agreement?

The direct answer is: a void agreement is one that is not enforceable by law. That is the safest and most accurate exam-friendly answer. If a question asks, “Which of the following is a void agreement?”, the correct option is usually the one describing an agreement that has no legal effect in the eyes of the law.

In many MCQs, the examiner may not use the exact words of Section 2(g). Instead, they may phrase the answer as:

• an agreement having no legal effect from the beginning
• an agreement not enforceable by law
• an agreement expressly declared void
• an agreement with unlawful, uncertain, or impossible terms

That is why understanding the concept matters more than memorizing one sentence. A student who understands the legal idea can answer both direct and tricky MCQ questions correctly.

What Is a Void Agreement Under Section 2(g)?

Under Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void.” That is the statutory definition. It is short, but it carries an important legal meaning: the agreement may exist on paper or in conversation, but the court will not enforce it as a valid legal obligation.

To understand this better, it helps to compare it with Section 2(h), which says a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. That means every contract must be enforceable, while a void agreement fails at that point. In other words:

Agreement + enforceability = contract
Agreement – enforceability = void agreement

This is also why students often see the phrase void ab initio. It means the agreement is treated as ineffective from the very beginning. In practical terms, parties to a void agreement generally cannot go to court and demand performance as if they had a valid contract.

Void Agreement vs Void Contract vs Voidable Contract

This is one of the biggest exam traps. Many learners mix up void agreement, void contract, and voidable contract, even though the Act treats them differently.

A void agreement under Section 2(g) is not enforceable by law from the start. A voidable contract under Section 2(i) is enforceable at the option of one or more parties, but not at the option of the other. A contract under Section 2(h) is an agreement enforceable by law, while Section 2(j) states that a contract that ceases to be enforceable becomes void.

Here is the difference in plain language:

This distinction matters in both law exams and article SEO because many searchers do not actually want only the definition of void agreement. They also want the difference between void agreement and voidable contract and the difference between a void agreement and a contract that later becomes void.

What Makes an Agreement Void?

An agreement becomes void when the law refuses to enforce it. That can happen for several reasons. Sometimes the problem is the object or consideration. Sometimes it is because the agreement restricts a protected freedom, such as marriage, trade, or legal remedies. In other cases, the terms are so vague that the court cannot tell what the parties actually agreed to. The Act also treats certain wagering agreements and impossible acts as void.

This gives you a useful exam shortcut. If an agreement is unlawful, uncertain, restrictive in a prohibited way, wagering in nature, or impossible to perform, it should immediately raise a red flag. That is often how the correct answer is hidden in MCQ format.

Types of Void Agreements Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872

The strongest way to understand the topic is section by section.

1. Agreements with unlawful object or consideration

The Act treats agreements connected with unlawful object or consideration as void. If the purpose involves something forbidden by law, fraudulent, or injurious to person or property, it cannot be enforced like a valid contract. This is where crime, fraud, and clearly unlawful arrangements enter the picture.

2. Agreement without consideration

As a general rule, Section 25 says an agreement made without consideration is void, subject to specific statutory exceptions. That is why not every promise becomes a contract just because someone says it aloud. Consideration remains a core part of enforceability.

3. Agreement in restraint of marriage

Under Section 26, an agreement in restraint of marriage is void. The law does not allow a person’s lawful marriage to be restricted by such an agreement, subject to the wording of the section itself. This is a classic exam example and one of the clearest forms of an agreement expressly declared void.

4. Agreement in restraint of trade

Under Section 27, an agreement in restraint of trade is void. This is probably one of the most frequently tested examples. If one option in an MCQ says a person is absolutely stopped from carrying on a lawful profession, trade, or business, that option is often the correct answer.

5. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings

Under Section 28, agreements in restraint of legal proceedings are void. The law does not permit parties to fully block the right to go to court or to impose unlawful restrictions on legal remedies. This is another high-value exam section that many short competitor pages barely explain.

6. Agreements void for uncertainty

Under Section 29, agreements are void for uncertainty when their meaning is not certain or capable of being made certain. This is important because many beginners think every written understanding is enforceable. It is not. If the terms are too vague, the court cannot enforce them as a contract.

7. Agreements by way of wager

Under Section 30, agreements by way of wager are void. This is one of the best-known business law examples and often appears directly in question banks. A pure wager is not enforceable as a contract under the section.

8. Agreement to do an impossible act

The Act also states that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. This principle appears in Section 56, which is extremely important for both conceptual understanding and exams. If the act is impossible from the start, the agreement lacks legal enforceability.

Examples of Void Agreements in Simple Language

Let us make these ideas easier with simple examples.

If A agrees to pay B to smuggle illegal goods, the agreement has an unlawful object. It is not a valid contract. If A promises B that B will never marry anyone, that is a restraint of marriage and is void. If A makes B promise never to carry on any lawful business again, that is a restraint of trade and is generally void under Section 27.

If A agrees to sell B “a hundred tons of oil” but nothing makes clear what kind of oil, quality, or standard is intended, the agreement may fail for uncertainty. If two parties agree that one will pay the other only if a pure betting event turns out a certain way, that may amount to a wagering agreement, which is void under Section 30. If someone promises to discover treasure by magic or perform an act impossible in itself, the agreement is void because the law does not enforce the impossible.

These examples are useful because they turn statutory language into memory tools. That is exactly what most searchers want when they type which of the following is a void agreement instead of a broader legal essay query.

Common MCQ Examples of Void Agreements

Below are the kinds of examples that appear often in Legal Reasoning, BCom, and business law exams:

This last example is especially important. A contract affected by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of free consent is often voidable, not automatically void. That distinction can change the answer in an MCQ.

Void Agreement vs Illegal Agreement

Another useful distinction is void agreement vs illegal agreement. Every illegal agreement is tainted by unlawfulness, but not every void agreement is illegal. Some agreements are simply unenforceable because they are uncertain, wagering in nature, or restricted by statute. That makes them void, but not always criminal or illegal in the broader sense.

For example, a wagering agreement is void under Section 30. An agreement in restraint of trade is void under Section 27. An uncertain agreement is void under Section 29. These are not all identical in consequence, and that is why students should avoid treating void and illegal as perfect synonyms.

Quick Comparison Table for Revision

Here is a fast revision table that works well for exam prep:

A table like this helps both readers and search engines because it captures void agreement, voidable contract, valid contract, and illegal agreement in one structured place.

How to Identify a Void Agreement Quickly in Exams

A simple decision rule can help. Ask these questions:

First, is the agreement enforceable by law? If not, it is void.
Second, does it involve restraint of marriage, restraint of trade, restraint of legal proceedings, uncertainty, wagering, or an impossible act? If yes, it likely falls in a classic void category.
Third, is the problem actually one of free consent, such as coercion or fraud? If yes, the answer may be voidable contract, not void agreement.

This is the kind of framework missing from many thin competitor pages. It helps the reader solve the question, not just read the definition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a void agreement in one line?

A void agreement is an agreement not enforceable by law under Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Is a wagering agreement void?

Yes. Agreements by way of wager are void under Section 30.

Is an agreement in restraint of trade void?

Yes. Section 27 states that an agreement in restraint of trade is void.

Is an uncertain agreement void?

Yes. Section 29 makes agreements void for uncertainty when their meaning is not certain or capable of being made certain.

Is an agreement to do an impossible act void?

Yes. Under Section 56, an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.

What is the difference between void and voidable?

A void agreement is not enforceable from the beginning, while a voidable contract is enforceable until the party with the option chooses to avoid it.

Conclusion

If you are revising for an exam or writing about which of the following is a void agreement, remember the golden rule: a void agreement is an agreement not enforceable by law. That is the foundation of the topic under Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. From there, the most important categories to remember are restraint of marriage, restraint of trade, restraint of legal proceedings, uncertainty, wagering, and impossible acts.

Disclaimer:

This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Void agreements, contract enforceability, and related legal concepts under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, may vary by context, case law, and interpretation, so students and readers should consult official legal texts or qualified legal professionals for specific guidance.