The invalidity of transaction

Legal defects can affect the validity of a transaction, leading to its invalidity.
Invalidity can manifest in two forms: null transactions and voidable transactions.

Defined as transactions with significant defects that prevent them from having any legal consequences.
Insignificant transactions are irreparable (i.e., cannot be improved).
A null transaction can only achieve legal effect if it is re-established.
Courts are not obligated to annul a transaction since null transactions do not produce legal effects.

These transactions still have legal consequences, although they are unintended or unwanted by the involved parties.
They appear regular until the defect affecting them is recognized.
Voidable transactions may be rehabilitated or strengthened if the law allows such remediation.
If remediation is successful, the transaction resumes its status as a valid and enforceable agreement.

Similar to voidable transactions, but reinforce that they can be remediated.
If a destroyable transaction cannot be remedied, it is treated as a null transaction, resulting in a retroactive reversal of its legal effects.
Restoration of the factual and legal situation prior to the transaction is required in such cases.

Announcements regarding destroyed or canceled transactions can only occur via a court order.

Legal Consequences: Null transactions produce no legal effects, while voidable transactions do, albeit unintended.
Rehabilitation: Null transactions cannot be strengthened, whereas voidable transactions can be corrected if permitted by law.
Retroactive Effects: Null transactions do not require restoration since they are null from inception, while voidable transactions require retroactive corrections if annulled after remediation fails.
Court Involvement: Announcing the null status of void transactions does not require a court order, unlike destroyed transactions where court intervention is mandatory.