What is the object of the statute and what mischief (harm) is the statute directed against? If the validity of the contract brings about the harm the statute is directed against, it is an indication that the legislator intended the contract to be void.

• Does the ENACTMENT impose a criminal sanction? This is usually an indication that the legislator intended the contract to be void. However, this is not the case where the sanction provides adequate protection against the mischief that the statute is directed against.
• Does the enactment MERELY serve to protect the revenue of the State? If the answer is in the AFFIRMATIVE, it is an indication that the legislator intended the contract to be valid.
• Does the provision merely protect individuals or does it involve a public interest that requires protection by voiding the contract? If the provision is for the protection of the public, it would be an indication that the legislator intended the contract to be void.
• What are the CONSEQUENCES of a particular interpretation of the contract? A balance-of-convenience test is employed that questions whether nullity of the contract would cause greater inconvenience and justice than allowing the illegal conduct to stand.

What is the object of the statute and what mischief (harm) is the statute directed against? If the validity of the contract brings about the harm the statute is directed against, it is an indication that the legislator intended the contract to be void.