A contract is legal or valid when the two parties have the capacity to make an agreement with a valid consideration to do something lawful. These elements are present in ICP management and Housemaster’s case. However, the contract can be avoidable on the basis that ICP does not have the ability to perform the principal object of the agreement. ICP required having the licenses to perform the things, but It never had the required licenses.
However, It can be seen that ICP also performed such tasks which did not require any of the licenses. In this case It has demanded to be compensated for those services where there was no requirement of license for their performance. Yet, there needs to be knowledge of dilation facts to resolve this Issue. Whether Andrew Hexagonally was Ignorant of the fact that ICP does not have the licenses or not at the time of entering the agreement Is also essential to be known.
In case a severalty clause was there In the contract, It would be considered partially avoidable making Andrew liable to pay for the services with no requirement of license. In case, the severalty clause was not there in the agreement and the terms of the agreement cannot be considered independent of ACH other, the whole agreement may be void on the basis that ICP did not have the capacity to enter the agreement.