Rahul found a smart watch in a restaurant. He enquired about all the customers present there but the true owner could not be found. He handed over…

(i) Responsibility of finder of goods (Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872): A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to same responsibility as if he were a bailee. Thus, a finder of lost goods has: (i) to take proper care of the property as man of ordinary prudence would take (ii) no right to appropriate the goods and (iii) to restore the goods if the owner is found. In the light of the above provisions, the manager must return the smart watch to Rahul, since Rahul is entitled to retain the smart watch found against everybody except the true owner. (ii) The problem as asked in the question is based on Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This Section says that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not expressly declared to be void. Further, Section 23 also states that every agreement of which the object is unlawful is void. Accordingly, one of the essential elements of a valid contract in the light of the said provision is that the agreement entered into must not be which the law declares to be either illegal or void. An illegal agreement is an agreement expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. A void agreement is one without any legal effects. The given instance is a case of interference with the course of justice and results as opposed to public policy. This can also be called an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. This agreement restricts one’s right to enforce his legal rights. Such an agreement has been expressly declared to be void under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Hence, Mr. Manoj in the given case cannot recover the amount of 10lakh promised by Mr. Vikas because it is a void agreement and cannot be enforced by law.