Unenforceable

Last updated

An unenforceable contract or transaction is one that is valid but one the court will not enforce. Unenforceable is usually used in contradiction to void (or void ab initio) and voidable . If the parties perform the agreement, it will be valid, but the court will not compel them if they do not.

Contents

An "agreement to agree", where a purported contract contains an obligation to enter into a subsequent agreement in the future, the terms of which are not certain at the time of the initial agreement, is generally considered to lack sufficient certainty to constitute a legally enforceable contract and is therefore unenforceable. [1] However, an agreement under which "the parties contemplate entering into a further, more formal, agreement later" may be enforceable. [2]

Prostitution

An example of a transaction which is an unenforceable contract is a contract for prostitution under English law. Prostitution is not actually a crime under English law, but both soliciting a prostitute and living off the earnings of a prostitute are criminal offences. [3] Yet so long as the contract is fully performed, it remains valid. However, if either refuses to complete the bargain (either the prostitute after being paid or the payer after receiving the services), the court will not assist the disappointed party.[ citation needed ]

Sometimes, contracts may be enforceable one way and unenforceable the other way. Again, there is an example from the field of prostitution. In Germany, where prostitution is also legal, a law exists that once a contract has been entered into makes a prostitute's demands for payment legally enforceable (even via collection agencies and courts if necessary), but the client's demands for fulfillment of the contract and rendition of sexual services would be unenforceable. German lawmakers made only the claims of prostitutes enforceable because they intended for German prostitution law to protect only prostitutes, without helping or furthering the interests of buyers of sexual services.

Restrictive covenants

In many jurisdictions, racially or ethnically restrictive covenants excluding disfavored groups such as Blacks or Jews were common until the 1940s. These were ruled unconstitutional in 1948 in the Shelley v. Kraemer case and therefore legally unenforceable. [4] :94 [5] [6]

Impugning a contract

To impugn a contract means attacking the integrity of the contract. A way it can be done is by deeming the contract unenforceable. A contract can be said unenforceable if it goes against the statutes of fraud or the Statement of Goods Act.[ clarification needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

A gentlemen's agreement, or gentleman's agreement, is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. It is typically oral, but it may be written or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentlemen's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is distinct from a legal agreement or contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forum selection clause</span> Contract clause which requires disputes to be resolved in a given manner or court

In contract law, a forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unconscionability</span> Doctrine in contract law

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidated damages</span> Damages agreed for a delay in a contract

Liquidated damages, also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach. This is most applicable where the damages are intangible.

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration. In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal agreement</span> Agreement to engage in illegal activity

An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration clause</span> Contract clause requiring parties to resolve disputes via arbitration

In contract law, an arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause.

Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous and commonly-used case in civil procedure classes for teaching that res judicata does not apply to an individual whose interests were not adequately represented in a prior class action. The case was successfully argued by the civil rights attorney Earl B. Dickerson.

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. In the labor market, these agreements prevent workers from freely moving across employers, and weaken the bargaining leverage of workers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restraint of trade</span> Common law doctrine

Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,

it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consideration</span> Concept in the common law of contracts

Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shelley House (St. Louis, Missouri)</span> United States historic place

The Shelley House is a historic house at 4600 Labadie Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri. Built in 1906, this duplex was the focus of the 1948 United States Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer, which ruled that judicial enforcement by state courts of racially restrictive covenants violated the Constitution. The house was designated a National Historic Landmark on December 14, 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Contract Act, 1872</span> Contract Act

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by Law.

The blue pencil doctrine is a legal concept in common law countries in which a court finds that portions of a contract are void or unenforceable, but other portions of the contract are enforceable. The blue pencil rule allows the legally-valid enforceable provisions of the contract to stand despite the nullification of the legally-void unenforceable provisions. However, the revised version must represent the original meaning. The rule may not be invoked, for example, to delete the word "not" and thereby change a negative to a positive.

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African contract law</span> Law about agreements between two or more parties

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", and is rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.

<i>Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Welwyn Hatfield DC</i>

Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Welwyn Hatfield DC [1995] 1 All ER 1 was a decision of the English High Court relating to the enforceability of financial derivative products under English law, and in particular whether they constituted gaming or wagering contracts under English law. The case essentially operated as a test case for certain key issues in relation to a series of litigation cases relating to swaps entered into between banks and local authorities in the United Kingdom which had been declared to be legally void.

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation. Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prostitution Act</span> Federal law in Germany regulating the legal status of prostitution

The Prostitution Act is a federal law in Germany that regulates the legal status of prostitution as a service in order to improve the legal and social situation of prostitutes. The law was promulgated on 20 December 2001 and has been in force since 1 January 2002. At the same time the Strafgesetzbuch §180a and §181a (pimping) were amended so that the creation of an adequate working environment is no longer punishable as long as no exploitation of prostitutes takes place.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Orsel and Minnie McGhee House</span> NHRP structure in Michigan

The Orsel and Minnie McGhee House is a single family home located at 4626 Seebaldt Street in Detroit. The house played a role in the landmark Shelley v. Kraemer Supreme Court decision that determined racially restrictive covenants to be unenforceable. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2022.

References

  1. Carver, D., Are agreements to agree enforceable?, Charles Russell Speechlys, published 26 February 2016, accessed 3 January 2021
  2. Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, Volumatic Ltd v Ideas for Life Ltd. (2019), paragraph 11, EWHC 2273 (IPEC), published 29 August 2019, accessed 7 September 2021
  3. Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2012
  4. "1948: Shelley v. Kraemer". The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston.
  5. Jeffrey D. Gonda (2015). Unjust Deeds: The Restrictive Covenant Cases and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement. University of North Carolina Press.