please only answer if you know and look at all pic below for more information i will check the answer once than i will rate you please give me the correct answer as i am really straggled

1/Complete the following diagram by using the information available in the PPT Slides titled 'Legality of Object' (slide numbers 31-43 in Week 4 slide pack) (Use the corresponding letter of the answer to insert into the space given below)

Legality Common Law C Contracts void by statute Contracts in restraint of trade A. Contracts Illegal at Common Law B. Illegal as formed or Illegal as performed C. Illegal on public policy grounds D. Contracts prejudicial to the status of marriage E. Contracts Void under Common Law F. Contracts to ouster the jurisdiction of the courts G.Statute H. Express Prohibition/Implied ProhibitionEssential Elements of a Contract Offer and Acceptance Legality of Intention to Purpose create legal relations Real/Genuine Consent Consideration Capacity (Turne, Trone and Gamble, p 45) Purpose must not be illegal, i.e., prohibited by common law or statute laws. - Illegal contracts are invalid and unenforceable. Contracts with offensive/improper objectives can be aected in the following ways: 1. Illegal by statute 0 Express prohibition (Re Mahmoud & Isgahani [1921] 2 KB 716) - Implied prohibition 2. Illegal by common law (e.g., contracts to commit crimes) 3. Void by common law (e.g., restraint of trade) Illegal by statute: Express prohibition . "[The court will not enforce a contract which is expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute": St John Shipping Corp v Joseph Rank Lid [1957] 1 QB 267 at 283 . Contracts expressly prohibited by statute are illegal o Re Mahmoud & Ispahani [1921] 2 KB 716 at 729 per Scrutton LJ (linseed license)Illegal by statute: Implied prohibition . If statute requires/proscribes certain conduct and provides a penalty for non- compliance, is a contract involving such conduct illegal and unenforceable or is the contract valid with the sanction of a penalty? . Depends on statutory interpretation: . Yango Pastoral Co PL v First Chicago Australia Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 410 . Buckland v Massey [1985] 1 Qd R 502 (roadworthiness certificate)Illegal as formed or performed . Illegal as formed: where expressly or impliedly prohibited from its inception . Re Mahmoud & Ispahani [1921] 2 KB 716 . Illegal as performed: Where one or both parties intend to perform it in illegal manner/for illegal purpose . Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co Lid v AV Dawson Lid [1973] 1 WLR 828Illegal by common law: Illegal on public policy grounds (a) Contracts to commit a crime, a tort or a fraud on a third party (b) Contracts promoting sexual immorality . Barac (tlas Exotic Studios) v Farnell (1994) 53 FCR 193 . Seidler v Schallhofer [1982] 2 NSWLR 80 (de facto) (c) Contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice Example: Agreements to stifle a prosecution; . Public Service Employees Credit Union v Campion (1984) 56 ACTR 39 . ScoliopL v Cote (1992) 6 WAR 475Illegal by common law: Illegal on public policy grounds (d) Contracts tending to promote corruption in public life . Parkinson v College of Ambulance Lid [1925] 2 KB 1 . Wilkinson v Osborne (1915) 21 CLR 89 (e) Contracts prejudicial to the public safety . Trading agreements between nation and enemy in wartime . Agreements that might affect existing friendly relationships - Regazzoni v KC Sethia [1958] AC 301 1 (f) Contracts to defraud the revenue - Alexander v Rayson [1936] 1 KB 1693 categories (contrary to public policy): (a) Contracts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts Dobbs v National Bank ofAustralasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 643 at 652 (1)) Contracts prejudicial to the status of marriage Scott v Scott (1904) 25 ALT 174 (c) Contracts in restraint of trade (Contracts in ROT) ' Petrona (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] 1 Ch 146 at 180: ROT contract is \"one in which a party (the covenantor) agrees with any other party (the covenantee) to restrict his liberty in future to carry on trade with other persons not parties to the contract in such manner as he chooses\". Restraint of trade (goodwill protection) 1s prima facie void as being contrary to public policy but will be binding if court is satised it is reasonable in the circumstances Considerations: (a) Restraint must be reasonable as between the parties g no wider than is reasonably necessary to protect the beneting person; and (b) Restraint must be reasonable public interest. ' Two main categories: 1.Agreements between buyer and seller of a business (good will protection) 2. Employer/employee restraints (contracts of employment) Contracts in Restraint of Trade 1. When a business is sold to protect purchaser's goodwill against undue competition by vendor . Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co [1894] AC 535 . Lloyd's Ships Holdings Pty Ltd v Davros Pty Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 505Contracts in Restraint of Trade 2. After termination of employment to restrain employee from exercising their occupation re certain area/time, e.g. . Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 . Jardin v Metcash (2011) 285 ALR 677 . Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Warburton (No 2) [2011 ] NSWSC 386 . Birdanco Nominees Pty Ltd v Money (2012) 36 VR 341 . NE Perry Pty Ltd v Judge (2002) 84 SASR 86 . Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 . In determining whether restraint is reasonable, court may have regard to the relative bargaining positions of the parties: A Schroeder Music Publishing Co Lid v Macaulay [1974] 1 WLR 1308Consequences of illegal & void contracts Illegal contracts . Statute & common law basically same . Contract is totally void . Money cannot be recovered Parkinson v College of Ambulance Lid [1925] 2 KB 1 (donation for knighthood) . Exceptions: - "in pari delicto": Kiriri Cotton Co Lid v Dewani [1960] AC 192; Shelley v Paddock [1980] QB 348] - fiduciary: Abdurahman v Field (1987) 8 NSWLR 158 - Repents illegal purpose before substantial performance . Related transactions voidConsequences of illegal & void contracts . Where a contract is void (but not illegal), if the void part of contract can be severed, remainder of contract can be enforced Speno Rail Maintenance Australia PL v Metals & Minerals Insurance PL (2009) 253 ALR 364 . If severance is not possible, the whole contract will be void: McFarlane v Daniell (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 337 at 345