Difference between a void contract and a voidable contract?

[format]

Doing some revision atm, could do with some help - what are the differences between a void contract and a voidable contract, and does 'restitutio in integrum' only apply to voidable contracts?

Cheers.

[MrSnaffles]

Hi, Law student here (but don't take everything I say for granted! )

In order for a contract to be void or voidable, it must breach one of these rules:

• the parties that enter into the contract must consent fully to do so, and
• they must have the legal capacity to enter into a contract, and
• they must be capable of carrying out their respective parts of the agreement, and
• the actions demanded of the contracting parties must be legal.

A void contract is one that obliges the contracting parties to commit illegal acts. Damages cannot be claimed by a party injured by attempting to comply with a void contract. For example, if I contract to pay someone to shoot a TV game show host, and the would-be murderer decides to take the money and run without satisfying his part of the deal, then the courts will not assist me to recover the money

Unlike a void contract, whose legal status is as if it never existed, a voidable contract is one that remains in force until it is declared void by one of the contracting parties.

restitutio in integrum should only apply to a voidable contract, as a void contract is treated as if it never legally existed.

Hope this helps