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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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.