This was done by Delhi High Court, in the case of Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Alag AIR 1991 Delhi 315, the court having decided that even an oral agreement can be a valid and enforceable contract. Therefore, it is not strictly necessary, in the strict sense, for a contract to be entered into in writing, unless the parties themselves are considering reducing the terms of the contract. The Information Technology Act not only recognizes the validity of e-mail contracts, but has also legally recognized digital signatures (also known as electronic signatures). The Department of Communications and Information Technology found that the validity of digital signatures was identical to that of handwritten signatures. If only one of these conditions is met, the agreement will continue to become illegal. While the legal basis for the management of e-mail contracts is growing and may not yet cover all the facets that are part of these agreements, it is undeniable that many Indian courts recognize the great propensity for e-commerce and internet addiction.
The prevailing judicial and legislative intent appears to be that all legally valid acts would remain valid, even if they were carried out online or electronically, provided that the contract fulfilled all the essential elements of a valid contract. In the case of S.V. Narayanaswamy vs. Savithramma 2013R.F.A. No. 1163 of 2002 v R.F.A.No.1164 of Karnataka High Court, the complainant sought to prove the existence of an oral agreement on the sale of real estate, which was strongly alleged. With the complainant`s proof allowance, she did so by issuing cheques in several amounts for the entire estate consideration. In developing various pieces of evidence indicating the existence of a whole, the Tribunal confirmed the existence of the verbal agreement based on the examination of the evidence presented. Indian Trade and Employment Restrictions Act Indian contract law requires that an agreement excluding any person from the exercise of a profession, profession or legal activity be non-bitter.
Under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 (hereafter the Act), agreements that provide for trade or trade restrictions are unfair because they impose a disproportionate restriction on the individual liberty of the contractor. Therefore, the Act invalidates all trade restrictions, whether general or partial, unless it is covered by the exception of this section. · Parties must reach the age of majority, that is, 18 years. An agreement with a minor applies ab intio (Mohri Bibi/Dharmodas Ghose, 1903) According to the 1872 record, a valid oral agreement of value is applicable and can be obtained in court.