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.

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.

A contract can be challenged by one of the parties to the contract if they claim their assent was not genuine because they were subject to undue influence. Undue influence is said to exist if an inordinate amount of pressure is placed upon a party to enter into a contract against their best interests. Undue influence cannot be invoked by a party simply because they are in a detrimental contract. 

Undue influence is usually only claimed in the event that the party is in a relationship wherein another person is able to influence their decisions. Normally undue influence can only be successfully claimed by a minor or an elderly person who has a guardian responsible for overseeing their legal or financial obligations.

Other relationships in which undue influence may arise include attorney-client relationships, doctor-patient relationships, and the relationships between the beneficiaries of a trust and the individual responsible for managing the trust.

An occurrence of undue influence can be difficult to establish conclusively in court. There is sometimes an automatic presumption of undue influence by the courts. A presumption of undue influence can be established if the party in the superior position influenced the dependent party to agree to a contract that benefited the superior party.

If the dependent party challenges a party that they were influenced to create by their guardian, the courts are likely to issue a presumption of undue influence because they believe that if the contract did not arise due to undue influence, then the dependent would not be challenging the contract.

The guardian involved in a court case in which the genuineness of assent in a contractual dispute involves a presumption of undue influence often bears the responsibility of disproving the charge filed against them by their ward. The undue influence charge is often repudiated by presenting evidence that the ward inquired about the terms of the contract or was afforded the opportunity to consult with an independent party that did not have a direct stake in the contractual negotiations that are being challenged.

The guardian can disprove that there has been an occurrence of undue influence even if there was a benefit conveyed to the guardian if they can demonstrate that the ward received a full disclosure of the benefit that the guardian would derive from the contract. If the guardian can prove that full disclosure was presented to the ward, that the ward obtained independent analysis of the benefits that all involved parties would receive, then the presumption of undue influence can be disproven.

In the event that undue influence is found to have existed by the courts, the courts will declare the contract to be voidable by the ward. Undue influence, however, cannot be claimed by a ward that acted upon the innocent advice of their guardian yet was harmed by the contract in a way that did not benefit the guardian.

Fraudulent misrepresentation may be claimed by a party attempting to have a contract declared void if three different criteria are met. The first is that there is an occurrence intended to create justifiable reliance on a fraudulent misrepresentation. 

The party seeking to have a contract invalidated must show that they entered into the contract due to a justifiable reliance on the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation. Justifiable reliance only becomes an issue if the claim is not readily apparent to be false. Failure to investigate a claim may be used to support a claim of justifiable reliance. The material misrepresentation must be made about an area that the injured party had no way of proving and thus was forced to rely on the other party’s statement.

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.

 

A mistake of fact which affects the genuineness of the assent given to the terms of a contract may be bilateral or unilateral. Mistakes of fact apply when the party concerned was operating under a mistaken understanding of the facts involved in the contract.

A mistake of fact is unilateral when only one party is mistaken. A bilateral mistake of fact occurs when both parties to the contract are operating under a mistaken reality. Bilateral mistakes are also known as mutual mistakes or common mistakes.

A mistake of fact that is unilateral in nature is not normally a reason to set aside a contract or a reason that will allow a plaintiff in a civil trial to seek damages. A unilateral mistake of fact will result in an enforceable voidable contract.

For example, a contract would be voidable at Luke’s discretion if Ben took advantage of Luke’s unilateral mistake regarding the purchase of a painting Luke thought was genuine. If Ben did not know that Luke thought he was buying the genuine painting, then Luke’s unilateral mistake would not prevent the contract from being enforceable.

A bilateral mistake would result in a contract that could be voided by both individuals in the event that Luke and Ben both believed the forgery was a genuine work by Dali. If Ben believed Luke intended to buy an artificial Dali painting, and Luke believed Ben was selling a genuine work by Dali, a mutual mistake has again been made because there was no intention to defraud and both parties made a mistake of fact.

Mistakes of fact should not be confused with mistakes of value. A mistake of value would occur if Jim sold Jack a random painting that he believed had only a slight value for $50. If Jim later learns that the painting was in fact done by a famous artist and worth $500, he cannot sue Jack to make up the $450. This sort of mistake is not permitted because the value of an object is not a fact. It can change. In order for a mistake to provide the basis to overturn a contract, the mistake must be of a fixed and provable nature.

 

A severable contract is a contractunenforceable that can still remain in effect despite those provisions which are void. In order for the blue pencil test to be satisfied, the phrase stricken by the court must not result in a change to the purpose for which the contract was created by the parties. The contract must still make grammatical sense after the edits have been made to the contract. Otherwise the contract will not be considered to have become a severable contract.

A severable contract can be formed if the parties who entered into the contract do not consider it essential that all the actions be performed together. Divisible contracts may exist if a convenience store orders the soda, chips and candy it sells from the same company in three separate clauses. An indivisible contract is formed if the store hired a vendor to provide the soda, chips, and candy in a single clause. 

Whether divisible contracts or indivisible contracts have been formed can often be determined by examining the terms under which consideration has been provided. If the set of contracts provide the consideration in a lump sum, it is usually an indivisible contract. If consideration is itemized for each thing exchanged, a severable contract often exists.

If a contract contains both legal and illegal clauses, the court will attempt to enforce only the legal clauses in the event the contract is already a severable contract. If the court can employ a blue pencil test to create a severable contract, it will.