In contract law, "void" and "voidable" agreements are two distinct concepts that describe the legal status of contracts:

1. Void Agreement:

   - A void agreement is one that is not legally valid from the outset. It is as if the contract never existed, and it lacks legal effect.

   - These agreements are typically unenforceable because they violate the law or public policy. Examples include contracts for illegal activities or contracts with minors in some jurisdictions.

   - Since they are fundamentally flawed, neither party can enforce the terms of a void agreement, and any property or money exchanged under such an agreement may need to be returned.

2. Voidable Agreement:

   - A voidable agreement, on the other hand, is initially valid but has factors that allow one party to choose whether to affirm or void the contract.

   - These factors might include fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, or lack of capacity (e.g., one party was mentally incapacitated at the time of contract formation).

   - The party with the option to void the contract can choose to either affirm it or void it, depending on their circumstances and interests.

 - If the party with the voidable option decides to void the contract, it becomes void and unenforceable. However, if they decide to affirm it, the contract remains valid and enforceable.

In essence, the key difference between void and voidable agreements is that void agreements are inherently invalid, while voidable agreements are initially valid but can be voided under certain conditions at the discretion of one party.