Which of the following would be considered an unlawful object of a contract?

The assertion that an agreement to commit a crime is an unlawful object of a contract is rooted in the fundamental principles of contract law. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, its purpose must be legal. When two parties enter an agreement to commit an illegal act, such as a crime, the subject matter of the contract is deemed to be against public policy and, therefore, unlawful. As a result, such contracts are void ab initio, meaning they have no legal effect from the outset.

In contrast, the other options involve activities that are either legal or socially acceptable and thus capable of forming valid contracts. The exchange of legal services and partnerships between businesses are standard elements of commercial activity, while the sale of compliant goods adheres to legal regulations, demonstrating that these agreements can be recognized and enforced by law. The key distinction lies in the legality of the contract's object, underscoring why an agreement to commit a crime is considered unlawful.