Thus, it is possible that a type of contract may be prohibited by law, but the contract remains valid and enforceable. However, a contract that requires only legal benefit. B of each game, such as the sale of decks of cards to a known player in which gambling is illegal, is applicable. However, a contract directly related to the gambling law itself, such as the repayment of gambling debts (see the case close), does not meet legal standards of applicability. Therefore, an employment contract between a blackjack dealer and a talkeasy manager is an example of an illegal agreement, and the worker is not validly entitled to his wages if gambling is illegitimate under that jurisdiction. An illegal contract can affect any type of agreement or transaction. The difference between an inconclusive agreement and an unenforceable contract can be considerable. It is this kind of immorality that the interests of society – public order – superimpose on the contractual interests of individuals in quarrels. It may be that, despite the illegality, something can be recovered from the situation. Courts have the power to review transactions despite illegality if it means that a profit or fault remains. The case law paves the way for the recovery of benefits awarded under an illegal contract.

It is the harm that would be caused to the public interest that is judged on the facts of the actual case. With respect to the definition of public order and what is within its scope and scope, Lord Atkin stated in the case of Fender v. John Mildayopined that public policy is vague and unsatisfactory, which causes errors and uncertainty while deciding its application. According to him, the term, in the most common sense, includes actions that are best for the common good. In his view, while applying the doctrine of a treaty “against public order”; Concentration on the adverse effects of the treaty is not the only important thing. Harmful trends must also be properly taken into account, as the soil is less safe and insidious. This analysis of him was also taken as the basis for some Indian precedents, including the Gherulal Parekh case.