Facebook
Home Legality Page 2

Legality

Knowing the Exculpatory Clause

Knowing the Exculpatory Clause

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.

Discover Contracts Contrary to Statute

Discover Contracts Contrary to Statute

There are several reasons the legality of a contract may be in question. The first is if the contract violates a statute. Contracts that are contrary to statute are considered void.
Usury contracts contrary to statute are formed when a contract exists that charges interest rates above the rate that State or local laws permit. Nearly every State has distinct usury laws. In some states a usurious loan is automatically void. In states that declare usury contracts void ab initio, the lender forfeits the principle as well as the interest if the courts become involved. 
Other states allow a usurer to recover both the principle loaned, as well as the interest up until the amount that would have been permitted under the law. In still other states, an usury contract only permits an individual to recoup the initial principle. Usurious rates depend upon the particular type of loan. If an usurious loan is not challenged, the person who has taken out the loan is usually obliged to repay the full amount.
Gambling contracts are void when they occur outside of the legally-approved methods of gambling. As with what level of interest constitutes usury in a particular State, each State has different ga

All You Need to Know About Reliance on Misrepresentation

All You Need to Know About Reliance on Misrepresentation

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.
 

The Truth Behind Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The Truth Behind Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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.

Understanding Intent to Deceive

Understanding Intent to Deceive

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.

What are the Illegality of Contracts

What are the Illegality of Contracts

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.

Severable and/or Divisible Contracts
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.

What You Need to Know About Withdrawing Acceptance

An offer and acceptance is the analysis of a traditional approach in contract law that is used to determine whether an agreement is valid between two parties. The term “agreement” consists of an offer by a party or individual (known as the “offeror”) to another entity known as the “offeree.”

The two sides enter negotiations based on the contract and its explicit stipulations. When the two sides agree on the intricacies associated with the agreement, a contract becomes realized.

When an offeree accepts the stipulations of an agreement or a contract, they are held responsible for fulfilling the intended roles of their agreement. If the offeree withdraws acceptance, depending on the form of the agreement, they will be held liable to fulfill the underlying terms of the agreement. There are instances where the offeree will be able to terminate the agreement, but a violation or a reneged stipulation must be present in the agreement.

12Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: There is no confidential attorney-client relationship formed by using Laws.com website and information provided on this site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. By using Laws.com you agree to Laws.com Terms Of Use.
Facebook
©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Free Coupon
X