What is a potential consequence of not having a lawful object in a contract?

A contract must have a lawful object, meaning its purpose must be legal and not against public policy, in order for it to be enforceable. If a contract lacks a lawful object, it may be rendered void because courts do not support illegal agreements or those that go against established legal principles. This principle ensures that the legal system does not endorse or facilitate actions that could be harmful to society or that seek to contravene existing laws.

When a contract is void against public policy, it means that the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law, as enforcements of such contracts would contradict societal interests or safety. This makes the absence of a lawful object a critical factor in determining the legitimacy and enforceability of a contract. Other options suggest possible outcomes that do not align with the legal principle of lawful object and public policy, leading to the conclusion that they do not accurately reflect the consequences of having an unlawful object in a contract.