-
>> In some circumstances,
-
a court will refuse to
enforce a contract on
-
the grounds that to do so
is against public policy.
-
To give an extreme example,
-
based on an actual case from Japan,
-
a woman hired a hitman to murder
her husband and his mistress.
-
The hitman botched the job
and failed to kill either,
-
and the woman sued him
for breach of contract.
-
Despite the existence of mutual
assent and consideration,
-
the court dismissed her case,
-
refusing to enforce the contract.
-
Given that murder is a crime,
-
it is not hard to see that a
contract for murder, that is,
-
a contract to commit a crime,
-
is a contract against public policy.
-
But the problem with refusing
to enforce a contract on
-
the grounds that it is
against public policy is that
-
the concept of public
policy is very malleable
-
and has a tendency to become tinged
with a judge's views on morality.
-
For instance, in jurisdictions where
prostitution and gambling are crimes,
-
courts have refused to enforce
contracts involving these activities,
-
such as promises to pay gambling debts.
-
Such cases are analogous
to the hitman contract.
-
Courts refuse to enforce contracts
involving criminal activity.
-
But some courts have
also refused to enforce
-
gambling debts in jurisdictions
where gambling is not a crime.
-
Those courts have reason that
although gambling may not be illegal,
-
it is nevertheless immoral behavior.
-
Section 178, subsection 1,
-
of the second restatement
states that a promise is
-
unenforceable on the grounds of
public policy in two instances.
-
First, where specific legislation
-
renders certain kinds of
promises unenforceable.
-
Second, where the interest in
enforcement of the promise,
-
such as the party's expectations,
-
is clearly outweighed by a public policy
-
against enforcement of those kinds
of promises such as gambling.
-
The section goes on to identify
some relevant factors.
-
But because the factors
are themselves vague and
-
because different courts assign
different weights to different factors,
-
it is difficult to predict the
outcome in any given case.
-
Your text gives two other examples of
-
contractual relationships that may be
challenged as against public policy;
-
covenants to not compete against a former
employer and surrogacy agreements.
-
An interesting line of cases examine
-
the issue whether it is
against public policy for
-
one party to release the other from
-
any liability arising out
of the other's negligence.
-
Such releases are fairly common.
-
Many entities that provide
-
recreational activities such as
horseback riding or scuba diving,
-
routinely require their
patrons to sign such releases.
-
In deciding whether to
uphold such releases,
-
courts have not adopted
many bright line rules.
-
However, one well accepted
rule is that a party cannot
-
contractually disclaim liability
for its own gross negligence.
-
But when ordinary negligence is involved,
-
courts have not established
the bright line rules.
-
Instead, they employ a
multi-factor balancing test.
-
Economics often plays a role
in this balancing test.
-
For example, back when cameras required
-
film and film was relatively inexpensive,
-
the manufacturers of
film regularly limited
-
their liability for defective film
to the cost of the film itself.
-
Purchasers of defective film
would sometimes challenge
-
such limitations on the ground that
they were against public policy.
-
The purchasers would argue that
-
their losses far exceeded
the cost of the film.
-
In one case, a wedding
photographer's film was defective,
-
and the plaintiff alleged that it costs
-
several thousand dollars to restage the
wedding to have the pictures taken.
-
Moreover, purchasers would argue
that the defective film was
-
the manufacturer's fault
and public policy should
-
hold negligent parties accountable
for the losses they cause.
-
The contractual disclaimer of
liability violated public policy.
-
Nevertheless, in the cases involving film,
-
courts pretty regularly upheld
contractual disclaimers of liability.
-
The courts reason that the manufacturer's
risk of being held accountable for
-
large losses would result in
-
a steep increase in the price of
film for the rest of all of us.
-
As the manufacturers
would pass on the cost of
-
insuring against such
losses to their customers,
-
and that on balance this would not
be beneficial to society as a whole.
-
But this balancing act
gets more problematic when
-
personal injury as opposed to
just economic loss is involved.
-
Let's say the cost of a recreational
activity is fairly modest,
-
say, $40 an hour to go horseback riding.
-
But risks are unavoidable and
regularly occur because horses are
-
regularly frightened by an unexpected
noise and they may react by rearing.
-
Moreover, there is a risk of
-
a catastrophic injury such as a
spinal or brain injury from a fall.
-
In such cases, should the provider
of the activity be allowed to
-
bargain for a release of liability
even if the provider is negligent?
-
Courts will have to weigh the extent of
-
injury against the cost of
insuring against that injury,
-
while factoring in the
social utility of having
-
such recreational activities
available at a modest price.
-
It is very difficult to predict
what a court would conclude.
-
To enforce a release of liability puts
-
the whole economic loss
on the injured party.
-
But to refuse to enforce the
release increases the cost of
-
the activity and may result in decreased
availability of that activity.
-
Conversely, to enforce the release
-
absolves a negligent
party of responsibility,
-
which may decrease the incentive
of other horse stables to
-
avoid future negligence and lead
to a greater number of injuries.