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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.