An agreement between Jim and his 18-year-old daughter, Betty, provides that he will give her $25,000 if she does not marry until after her 22nd birthday. One month after reaching the age of 22, Betty, still unmarried, claims the $25,000. Jim refuses to pay, claiming that the agreement was illegal. Is Jim correct

No, Jim is not correct.

Explanation:

Betty will win this case.

Generally, the law encourages marriage as its policy. If there is any contract that prevent or restrict marriage in whatever way, such contract would be considered null and void because it is against the public policy.

Despite the above, contracts will be generally considered valid when they place reasonable restrictions on marriage. In this question, the restriction placed on Betty that she should get married until after her 22nd birthday is reasonable and has to be considered to be valid. Based on this, Betty has to be paid the $25,000 as laid down in the binding contract between the two parties.

Therefore, Jim is not correct.

answer; 20% is your answer;