All of these agreements that comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act are contracts. Section 10 is like sub – The notion of non-multiple contracts: there are certain agreements that can be implemented by one party, but not on the option of other parties. It is up to that party to decide whether it agrees to apply the treaty or to render it unenforceable, i.e. to cancel it. Cancellation agreements are therefore both valid and void. The points-to-points circle of non-negotiable agreements indicates that they can be classified as nullity or valid depending on the parties to the assessment and therefore cover the scope of valid and invalid agreements. Case: Jones v/s Padavllon: Where a young girl left the service to take legal training on her mother`s promise to bear the expenses. It was seen as a family affair and not as a binding contract. Thus, we can say that not all agreements are contracts, but not all contracts are agreements. As an economic means, the treaty is based on the concept of consensual exchange and has been the subject of in-depth economic, sociological and anthropological discussions (see „contract theory“ below). In American English, the term goes beyond legal meaning and encompasses a broader category of agreements.  An agreement reached by a minor agreement without consideration, certain agreements against public order, etc. „All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.“ This statement can be understood from the Venn diagram above.
The agreements, which are enforceable under the law of the country, become contracts designated by the inner circle. The outer circle refers to agreements that are not contracts. The shady part includes agreements that are not enforceable by law and are referred to as non-legal agreements. Such an agreement results in a specialty contract, which is a contract under the seal. All contracts are up to the avoidable and avoidable contract if one of the parties can withdraw if they wish. This is due to a slight agreement and misrepresentation or undue influence. Considering a case in which person A contracted with Person B, but during the duration of Contract B, acknowledges that he was instructed to implement an agreement under inappropriate influence.