Void (law) in the context of "Annulment"

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

• The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose. The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions for which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is grounds for asking for a law to be struck down for violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because, even though the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might adversely affect others, because they might not know when they were violating it. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
• The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so.

In the United States, a person may not bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit and will dismiss it without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

The annexation of Western Sahara occurred in two stages: 1976 and 1979. Shortly after Spain gave up control over Spanish Sahara in 1975, both Mauritania and Morocco occupied the territory. On 14 April 1976, the two countries annexed it between themselves via the Western Sahara partition agreement. However, on 14 August 1979, Mauritania renounced all territorial claims to Western Sahara and withdrew its troops, prompting Morocco to extend its annexation to formerly Mauritanian-controlled areas.

Since World War II, it has been held in international law that any act of annexation is illegal. Likewise, the United Nations regards the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara as null and void, such that the territory is not a legal part of Morocco and it remains subject to the international guidelines for a military occupation.

An unenforceable contract or transaction is one that is valid but one the court will not enforce. Unenforceable is usually used in contradiction to void (or void ab initio) and voidable. If the parties perform the agreement, it will be valid, but the court will not compel them if they do not.

An "agreement to agree", where a purported contract contains an obligation to enter into a subsequent agreement in the future, the terms of which are not certain at the time of the initial agreement, is generally considered to lack sufficient certainty to constitute a legally enforceable contract and is therefore unenforceable. However, an agreement under which "the parties contemplate entering into a further, more formal, agreement later" may be enforceable.

Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

A void marriage is a marriage that is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is invalid from its beginning, and is generally treated under the law as if it never existed and requires no formal action to terminate. In some jurisdictions a void marriage must still be terminated by annulment, or an annulment may be required to remove any legal impediment to a subsequent marriage. A marriage that is entered into in good faith, but that is later found to be void, may be recognized as a putative marriage and the spouses as putative spouses, with certain rights granted by statute or common law, notwithstanding that the marriage itself is void.

Void marriages are distinct from those marriages that can be canceled at the option of one of the parties, but otherwise remain valid. Such a marriage is voidable, meaning that it is subject to cancellation through annulment if contested in court.

In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully, can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively, an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake', and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.

Another breakdown in contract law divides mistakes into four traditional categories: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, mistranscription, and misunderstanding.