An exculpatory clause is a clause of a contract in which one of the parties releases the other party from liability for their actions. An exculpatory clause may or may not be considered contrary to the public interest depending upon what field the party seeking the release of liability typically operates.

A contractual clause which limits liability is not automatically grounds that the contract will be declared unenforceable during a contract dispute. Limited liability clauses are permitted in many contracts. The only time they may become an issue is if the contract dispute involves an exculpatory clause that seeks to invalidate the liability claim regardless of which party is at fault.

An exculpatory claim in which the liability for all personal injury or monetary damage will frequently be upheld if the party seeking relief is a private business, such as an amusement park, health club, or general recreational facility. Relief is often granted from suits filed against parties that are not considered essential to the public good or involved in public health. For these types of companies, exculpatory clauses are generally held to be enforceable. 

A contract dispute with a public utility company, a bank, or a company which carries public goods in which an attempt is made to invoke an exculpatory clause is usually bound for failure. The courts have generally invalidated exculpatory clauses in these contracts because of the belief that allowing these companies to escape liability would be detrimental to the public good.

If a lease contains an exculpatory clause it may be enforceable or unenforceable depending on the purpose for which the property is leased. If an exculpatory clause is present when there is a contract dispute regarding the lease of a commercial property, the exculpatory clause will usually be enforced.

If the property is residential, the exculpatory clause in the contract dispute will usually be considered unenforceable by the courts. This distinction is made because it is generally considered more detrimental to the public good to inflict harm against individuals than is harming a commercial enterprise.

A contract may be ruled to be illegal by any court of law. Illegality can become an issue even if the normal requirements of acceptance of offers, consideration, contractual capacity, are present. Illegal contracts typically do not result in any liability for the involved parties. The courts may rule an illegal contract exists regardless of whether or not the parties involved in the suit raise the issue, even if the two parties believe the contract to be legal.

A severable or divisible contract may be formed by the parties to the contract or may result from actions of the courts. The parties can create a severable contract by including a severence clause into the original contract. A severance clause is a clause which states that if there is one other contractual clause that would cause the contract to be considered illegal, then the offending phrase should be stricken from the contract, so long as the removal of the clause does not substantially alter the original nature of the contract. 

Divisible contracts are similar contracts entered into by the same parties which have similar terms but can be completed independently of each other. A court may form a severable contract by utilizing a blue pencil test. If the offending phrase in a contract can be removed from the contract without enacting any change besides turning an illegal contract into a legal one, then the change passes the blue pencil test.

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.

 

In order for an allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation to be sustained there must be an intent to deceive on behalf of the accused party. The element of intent also requires that the deceiver must know that the information they are spreading is false or that the withholding of the information would constitute a fraudulent action.

The technical term for this intent to do wrong is known as scienter. Scienter is related etymologically to the word science. Both words refer to the possession of knowledge.

Laws concerned with fraud in contracts may find that scienter exists if one of the parties to the contract knows that one of the material facts that affect the contract in question is not true as they are stated in the contract.

Scienter is also determined by laws governing contracts to exist if one of the parties to the contract makes statements without any regard to whether the statements they utter are true or false. Laws regard this willful ignorance of the validity of the individual’s statements to rise to the level of fraudulent representation.

Scienter may also be found to exist if the party accused has claimed that their statements are based on personal knowledge or research when this knowledge or research has no actual basis in reality.

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.

Contract laws generally prohibit contracts that restrain trade. Contracts restraining trade are defined as contracts that reduce the level of competition involved in the commercial exchange of goods or services. Contracts that restrain trade are considered a classification of contracts that are contrary to public policy.

These kinds of contracts are sometimes defined by contract laws as covenants not to compete and sometimes as non-competition contracts. Whichever they are known as, though, they are illegal and are thus considered unenforceable. 

Elements of contracts that restrain trade are generally permissible if they are limited in scope or duration. A contract is permissible if it compels a party to the contract to relinquish the right to make a particular thing, but not if it attempts to force one of the parties to the contract to not compete with the other in any way in the future.

Contracts are permitted to contain non-competition clauses if the clause exists in order to protect business secrets of the employer, or if the non-competition element of the contract seeks to limit a former employee from utilizing business contacts which are considered essential to the operations of the company with which the original contract was signed.

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.