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.

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.

Non-fraudulent misrepresentation can take one of two forms: innocent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation is considered in the eyes of the law to contain the same level of culpability as fraudulent misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation that is negligent in nature is treated by the courts in the same way as a fraudulent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation occurs when a party to a contract does not carry out a reasonable effort to ensure that their claims as the material information at the heart of the contract are true.

If one of the parties to the contract in question does not act with the professionalism that would reasonably be expected from an individual in that position, and the other party relies on that professionalism when entering into the contract, then negligent misrepresentation may be determined by the courts to have happened.

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.

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.

 

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.