Meanwhile, they don't automatically throw out random clauses without a "severability" (spelling?) clause. Otherwise the whole contract risks imploding. They do it sometimes, but it's more of a desperation move by the courts who are basically saying "the contract lawyer was sloppy so we shouldn't do this, but Bad Things happen if we don't".
-TaoPhoenix
There's also the "know what you're signing" part of a contract. Courts have sufficient respect for the individuals entering into a contract that they assume they exercised due diligence and got competent advice before signing on the dotted line. Because if you didn't, unless there's a clear violation of statute in one of the contract clauses - or the contract is deemed unenforceable or illegal, you're SOL and the contract stands. "Fairness" also doesn't factor into the picture since every contract consists of offer, tender and acceptance. So once someone makes an offer, some money is exchanged, and both parties agree and sign, it's a done deal and enforceable. 'Fair' is generally seen as
what was agreed to.
Even ordinary duress isn't sufficient to invalidate a contract since certain levels of normal duress (i.e. being required to sign a promissory note or put up escrow in order to avoid legal action for defaulting on a commercial transaction) are a regular part of normal business. In short, you don't have to like it - or even completely voluntarily sign a paper in order to enter into a valid contract. You just have to agree (even if not willingly) to the terms and do so in a legal manner. 'Undue duress' is another matter. But it has to be pretty egregious before a court will accept a claim of "undue duress" to invalidate a contract. Usually there has to be a provable threat of physical injury (i.e "Sign or we'll break your arms!") before that happens.
Even in cases where contracts are somewhat ambiguous, it's not a good idea (in my state at least) to try to play games with interpretations. Most judges I've seen in contract disputes (where there were no questions of legality or enforceability) will tell the self-schooled legal types: "Did he/she deliver the product or do the work for you? And did you use what they provided? And was the product or service rendered
substantially as described in the contract? If so, then pay them."
Contract law in the US is pretty straight forward - and completely rational once you understand its premises.
The reason the courts don't lightly allow a contract to be voided is because people need to have a high degree of confidence in them being enforceable if executed properly. That's not a big government conspiracy. That's just common sense. And what makes a lot of good business possible. Enforceable contracts go a long way towards preventing corruption and doing everything using the "who you know" and "I need a favor..." systems that are common in many places throughout the world.
Recent Posts
