The agreements declared by the courts against public order are as follows: two companies are considering developing software that, in this scenario, violates privacy and public law law? There is no invasion of privacy, as the agreement was entered into voluntarily by companies in the mutual interest and utility of sharing their customers` information. However, if the information provided by clients were disclosed outside, it could attract the offence u/s 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for breach of confidentiality and privacy. In the case of Richardson v. Mellish „… He`s a very recalcitrant horse, and once you fight, you never know where it`s going to take you. Again, Lord Davy stated in the case of Janson Driefontein Consolidated Mines Ltd. … Public policy is always an uncertain and insidious reason for making a legal decision. Lord Atkin: „Teaching should only be invoked in clear cases where the harm to the public is essentially indisputable and does not depend on the strange conclusion of certain legal minds.“ [Fender v. St. John Mildmay], An agreement reached with the intention of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable because it is contrary to public policy. If, in an agreement, the counterparty commits a crime, the agreement is contrary to public order and is non-aeig. Similarly, an agreement to compensate a person for the consequences of his or her criminal act is not applicable if it is contrary to public policy.
It is the agreements that completely or partially prohibit a contracting party from asserting its rights to a contract are null and void in this regard. Guardianship rights cannot be transferred or transferred in the public interest. The interests of the child or the commune should be duly protected. As a result, the law has entrusted this authority to the parents of children. Father is the legal guardian of his minor child. In the absence of the father, this right is transferred to the mother. Example: A and B were rival traders in a locality of Calcutta.