A person is assumed to have the capacity to enter into a contract. An intoxicated person, minor, or mentally incapable person has two options available to them after entering into a contract which affects the validity of the contract into which they have entered. The first option they have is to disaffirm a contract. Disaffirming a contract reveals a desire by an individual to no longer be bound by the contract. The disaffirmation can be verbal or active.

The other action that can affect the validity of a contract is ratification. Ratification reveals a willingness to be bound by the terms of the contract. As with disaffirmation, ratification can be verbal or active. If a person continues to use an item after they would otherwise be released from the contract, they have ratified the contract by action.

Ratification takes precedence over disaffirmation. If a person attempts to disaffirm a contract from which they have already received substantial benefit, the courts will not allow them to disaffirm the contract. The fact that the individual has benefitted from the contract is considered proof of acceptance to being bound by the contract.

It is impossible for anyone to disaffirm a contract they entered into in order to obtain essential services. Contractual obligations for necessary services cannot be avoided under any circumstance.

Fraud is voidable by the injured party. The justifiable reliance cannot be easily disproven and must constitute a claim that a reasonable person would believe. A promisee who entered into a contract with a car salesman that claimed that the car in the contract could go one hundred miles per gallon would not be able to claim justifiable reliance on the salesman’s claim because the claim is unjustifiable. 

The claim that a car is brand new, despite extensive and obvious damage to the car, would not be grounds for justifiable reliance by an individual claiming the salesman duped them. Justifiable reliance only applies to instances where the injured party relied upon a claim that could not be easily disproved.

A person could claim justifiable reliance if they bought a car they believed was in perfect working order but upon driving the car home discovered extensive body damage, a faulty ignition system, failing brakes, or other serious defects in the car. In such a situation, the person may be able to claim that they were damaged by a justifiable reliance on the salesman’s claims.

The party claiming that they were induced to enter into a contract due to justifiable reliance on misrepresentations by the other party must be able to show that their reliance was not based on something that they could reasonably be expected to discover on their own.

 

An unconscionable contract is unenforceable. It is immaterial whether a waiver is explicit or implicit. Procedural unconscionability also gives rise to an unconscionable contract if one of the parties is in a vastly superior bargaining position.

An unconscionable contract may also contain substantive unconscionability if the terms of the contract are excessively harsh or would be oppressive to implement. An unconscionable contract can also result if the party selling the goods marks up the price tremendously and attempts to hide how great the mark up is.

Whether a contract is conscionable or unconscionable can only be determined by a judge and never by a jury.

During the contract drafting process every attention must be paid to ensuring that an illegal contract is not created. As a result, individuals responsible for contract drafting employ several safeguards to attempt to decrease the probability that they create an illegal contract.

Some of these preventative methods include using boilerplate language, which are terms used in a majority of contract drafting negotiations, as well as employing lawyers or people with a legal background in the contract drafting. However, even when these safeguards are employed, illegal contracts can still result.

Even if illegality is found to exist in a contract, it may still be enforceable in pari delicto, then a legal contract will not be ruled to exist.

If the violation of the law in question is not of a serious nature, then the illegal contract may be enforced as if it were a legal contract. If the compensation that would have to be provided in the event the contract was declared illegal would be out of proportion to the infraction of the concerned law, then the contract may be enforced as if it were a legal contract. The agreement may also be treated as a legal contract if the court determines that there would be an unjust enrichment to one of the parties in the event that the contract drafting was set aside.

If a contract is ruled to be illegal after actions have been done by one of the parties which cost money, the idea of quantum meruit may come into play. Under quantum meruit, which means “as much as deserved,” an individual may be able to recoup expenses in proportion to their outlay of money for services performed in an illegal contract if they performed the actions under the belief they were executing a legal contract.

Unlike in a legal contract, quantum meruit does not entitle the individual invoking it to hold the other person liable for the terms of the contract. This legal concept only allows the individual to recoup their losses.

As a legal concept, duress has a long tradition. Duress is related to the concept of undue influence. Duress exists when there is a threat of bodily harm, and the threat is immediate and cannot be avoided. Duress also exists in criminal law proceedings. In order for duress to exists in a contract law court proceeding there must be a wrongful or illegal threatened act. 

A contract also cannot normally be made voidable because one of the parties is suffering from economic duress. Claims of duress are filed by parties to a contract seeking to prove that their assent to a contract was not genuine, and thus did not fulfill the essential requirements needed to form a contract.

A contract cannot be invalidated by a party to that contract who claims duress because the other party threatened to sue them for a larger amount, because the filing of a law suit is a legally permitted action. A claim of duress is distinct from instances where the consideration offered by one of the parties is the forbearance of an action. 

Duress can be invoked if the party claiming they were acting under duress was in fear for their safety. An example of duress would be if a person is told to sign a contract or their family or they themselves would be harmed. This qualifies as duress because the consideration of forbearance is to forbear from doing an illegal act. If it is a wrongful or illegal threatened act then it constitutes an instance of duress.

A claim of economic duress is not usually permitted. Individuals are usually only able to successfully invoke a claim of economic duress if the other party in the contract is the immediate cause of the economic duress. Sometimes the courts permit a claim of economic duress to be filed in contracts which involve one party claims they are suffering from economic difficulties which are not caused by the other party in the contract, although such claims of economic duress are not usually accepted. 

Economic duress does not exist simply if exorbitant prices are charged for goods or a service. However, if the high prices are charged by the same party that created the need for the good or service then a claim of economic duress may be permitted by the courts.

If the individual claiming the contract was formed under duress is able to prove their claim, then the courts may declare the contract voidable. 

Contracts that are adjudicated to be contrary to public policy may result in portions of the contract being declared unenforceable.

An exculpatory clause is a provision of a contract that releases one party of the contract from all liability no matter who is at fault. Exculpatory clauses are normally permitted to remain in effect if the contracted party is engaged in an enterprise that is not considered essential to the public good, such as the operation of a recreational facility. However, with a clause that releases a company from liability which functions in a business that is considered essential to the public good, the courts w