The notion of legal relationships was reconsidered in Edmonds vs. Lawson ,11 where a lawyer argued that her students were assimilating a contract. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that it was a training contract rather than a commercial contract and therefore there was no contract. The concept of countervailable contracts: there are certain agreements that can be implemented by one party, but not to the extent possible by other parties. It is for that party to decide whether it is prepared to enforce the treaty or to render it inapplicable, i.e. null and void. Countervailable agreements are therefore both valid and invalid agreements. The marked scope of countervailable agreements means that they may be considered invalid or cancelled at the discretion of a party and thus cover the scope of valid and invalid agreements. A Case LALMAN V/S GAURI DATT-1913: The nephew of the accused fled his native country. The plaintiff, who was a defendant servant, was sent to search for the missing boy. After the plaintiff went in search of a boy, the defendant issued a flyer announcing a reward of Rs.501.00 to anyone who could find his boy. The complainant, who was not aware of this reward, managed to find the boy.
When he learned of the reward that had been announced in his absence, he filed a complaint against the accused to claim the reward. It was taken into account because the complainant was unaware of the reward offer, his act of bringing the lost boy was not limited to accepting his offer, and was therefore not allowed to claim the reward. Where a person is aware of the offer, his participation is equivalent to the acceptance of it under the conditions of the offer. In this case, it does not matter that at the time of acceptance of the offer, the acceptor does not intend to benefit from the reward mentioned in the offer. Under the Indian Contract Act, the following agreements are voided – an agreement between spouses during their marriage to determine the right to alimony and the property of the other in the event of death or divorce. Such agreements are not enforceable unless each party makes full disclosure of its assets to the other party and has consulted with its own lawyers. Even then, most of these agreements are not enforceable unless they are entered into by spouses in the midst of separation or divorce. However, the law stipulates that any contract concluded with a person under 18 years of age is unenforceable. In the following case, the agreement between the boy and the ice cream seller was an agreement that cannot be qualified as a contract, as it is legally unenforceable.