Section 23 of the Indian Treaty focuses primarily on the purpose, that is, the purpose of the contract. It finds that the contract itself is illegal and void when such an object is illegal and contrary to public policy and is not legally enforceable. Such types of contracts do not create valid obligations of the parties to their performance and bind them with criminal responsibility in the event of illegality of the act instead of consideration. To determine the intent of the parties, the Court will consider the facts and the seriousness of the illegality on a case-by-case basis. Laws LJ doubted that Parkingeye appreciated the involvement of the mail projects: if anyone had drawn attention to the potentially offensive aspects of these letters, it was certain that they would have been corrected. Accordingly, the LJ Act found that Parkingeye did not intend to deliberately break the law in this case and that the contract had been complied with. In Patel v Mirza (2016), the Supreme Court stated that the factors for judging illegality and the consequences of it are: sometimes, a contract will relate to an object that is not expressly prohibited by law, but which is nevertheless contrary to public order and the principles of fair trade. These contracts also fall under the category of “illegal contracts” and are not applicable. This is the principle of public order; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will assist a man who finds his complaint for an immoral or illegal act. If it appears to be the result of the applicant`s own reputation or in some other way the means ex turpi causa or the transgression of a positive law of this country, the court says there that he is not entitled to assistance.
That is why the court is leaving; not for the defendant, but because they do not provide assistance to such a [plaintiff]. Therefore, if the [plaintiff] and the defendant changed sides and the defendant brought his action against the [plaintiff], the plaintiff would have the advantage; because if both were equally responsible, potior is conditio defendentis [where both parties are wrong and where the plaintiff can only succeed on property stolen for an illegal act, the defendant`s position is better] The underlying purpose of that law – the prohibited conduct – is assessed to determine precisely what was illegal. Coral Leisure Group Ltd/Barnett  shows that an unlawful act carried out under an otherwise lawful contract does not always prevent a party from enforcing the contract.