Where one provision in a contract is void for illegality (and is not the contract's main or essential feature) but can be clearly separated from the other parts relied on, such other parts are not affected by the invalid part, and they may be enforced with the same force and effect as if the invalid provision had never been in the contract. For instance, Allen sells his business to Har-rowby for $50,000, and in consideration of $10,000 more, agrees not to engage in a similar business again anywhere in the State. The second agreement is illegal, because it is an unnecessary restraint of trade, but as it rests on a separate consideration and can be separated from the legal part, the latter may be enforced (the agreement to sell the business). But if for $50,000 Allen had agreed to sell his business and not to engage in business in the State, then the whole agreement falls, for it would be impossible to say how much of the $50,000 was for the sale of the business and how much for the agreement not to engage in the business again. The rule is that if any part of an indivisible contract (where we cannot find a separate consideration for the illegal part) is void for illegality or reasons of public policy, then neither of the parties can enforce any of its provisions against the other. If the parties are not in pari delicto (equal guilt) the courts may aid the party who, compared with the other, is innocent of an illegal intent, to recover any money he may have paid. When equity and justice require it, the court will afford relief to the more innocent party even after the contract has been performed. For instance, a marriage broker induces an ignorant foreigner to pay him money to secure a wife for the latter. The court will permit the foreigner to recover the money, holding that the parties are not in equal guilt, since the foreigner is ignorant and has been induced by the broker's superior ability to part with his money.