i) Fraud Vitiates Contracts:
Fraud manifests itself in conduct when one does something with the intention of inducing reliance or performance by another, knowing very well that his action is untrue.
(1 mark)

The law does not tolerate fraud. It, therefore, makes a contract voidable, hence the essence of the statement that fraud vitiates contract.
(1 mark)

However, because fraud makes a contract voidable, if the Court’s assistance is sought in a timely manner, and if no third-party rights have intervened, the court will set aside a contract tainted by fraud to protect the innocent party.
(1 mark)

ii) Contract Freely Entered into by Parties with Capacity Are Treated in Law as Sacred:
In the law of contract, six (6) principles, i.e., freedom of contract, contracting party beware, protecting the innocent third party, purchaser reasonableness and intolerance of fraud, acting in symbiosis and together hold sway. These principles underscore the issue of sanctity of contracts.

Contracts freely entered into by parties with capacity are treated as sacred in law. The law is concerned with the free will of the parties and not with the fairness of the terms of a valid contract.
(1 mark)

In other words, once the contracting parties, in the absence of any case of insanity, and are within the contracting age, the contract is valid, and the court will not entertain complaints about contractual fairness.
(1 mark)

Courts uphold the sanctity of contract firstly because of deference to the contracting parties, meaning if the parties have freely come to terms, the court must defer to the parties and respect those terms. The second reason is that the court finds itself incompetent and, therefore, reluctant to substitute terms freely entered into by the parties themselves.
(1 mark)

It must, however, be noted that the sanctity of contracts is not a license for fraud or to deceive the illiterate and blind.