The phrase "agreement is void" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal contexts to indicate that a contract or agreement is no longer valid or enforceable.
Example: "Due to the lack of mutual consent, the agreement is void and cannot be upheld in court."
Alternatives: "contract is null" or "agreement is invalid."
That agreement is void in light of today's announcement.
By having Walsh turn over all his evidence and allowing his lawyer, Levy, to keep a copy, the league protects itself from any of the tapes leaking to the news media; otherwise the agreement is void.
This brings us to the second question whether the agreement is "void so as to prevent the plaintiff from recovering for its breach". "At first thought it is sometimes supposed that an illegal bargain is necessarily void of legal effect, and that an 'illegal contract' is self-contradictory.
By its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof or the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime; * * *." "In the following cases an agreement is void unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by his lawfully authorized agent: First.
Whether it is you not needing them, them not needing your place, or both not needing something of equal importance from each other the agreement is void.
His immunity agreement is voided if he lies.
The High Court judge had said the pre-nuptial agreement was void but was not irrelevant and its existence had reduced her award to the husband.
When Janet filed for divorce, she contended that the postnuptial agreement was void, because of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and failure of consideration.
The tenant alleged that the beer tie agreement was void, in breach of Article 81 EC, and that he had suffered loss as a result of adhering to this agreement.
In the ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agreement was void because the two parties had not first obtained Congressional approval.
We conclude, as matter of law, that the special agreement was void, that the established local rates were unaffected by it, that the rate collected by the garnishee was the applicable legal rate, and that the finding and judgment should have been in favor of, and not against, the garnishee.
