Agreement Opposed to Public Policy Cases: Understanding the Legal Implications
An agreement that goes against the public policy of a country or state is considered illegal, and therefore, it is unenforceable in a court of law. Public policy is the set of principles that a government and society use to guide their decision-making processes. It is this public policy that shapes the legal framework of a country or state.
When an agreement is opposed to public policy, it is deemed to be against the best interests of society and is therefore unenforceable. Such agreements are void and can be challenged in a court of law. In this article, we will discuss the legal implications of agreements opposed to public policy and the cases that have set legal precedents.
What is an Agreement Opposed to Public Policy?
An agreement that promotes illegal activity, is immoral, or violates public policy is considered to be opposed to public policy. Such agreements are unenforceable because they are against the welfare of society and could have a harmful impact. Public policy is intended to guide the actions and decisions of people in a society. Therefore, any agreement that conflicts with public policy is unlawful and deemed void.
One of the most common examples of an agreement opposed to public policy is a contract to commit a crime. Such contracts are unenforceable because they encourage illegal behavior. Another example is an agreement that restricts a person`s right to pursue a legitimate profession. These agreements are void because they are against the freedom of choice and could be detrimental to society.
Cases Dealing with Agreements Opposed to Public Policy
Several cases have shaped the legal precedence for agreements opposed to public policy. One such case is the landmark case of Hodge v. O’Neill. In this case, the claimant, Mr. Hodge, entered into an agreement with the defendant, Mr. O’Neill, to smuggle counterfeit coins into the country. The court ruled that the agreement was opposed to public policy and therefore void.
Another landmark case is Tinsley v. Milligan. In this case, the claimant, Ms. Tinsley, entered into an agreement with the defendant, Ms. Milligan, to transfer a property into her name. The property was being held in trust for Ms. Tinsley by her ex-partner. The court ruled that the agreement was opposed to public policy because it involved deception and fraud.
In summary, agreements opposed to public policy are unenforceable because they go against the welfare of society. Such agreements include contracts promoting illegal behavior, contracts restricting a person`s freedom of choice, and contracts that involve fraud and deception. It is important to understand the legal implications of such agreements to avoid entering into unlawful contracts. By understanding the legal framework, both individuals and businesses can protect themselves from the consequences of agreements opposed to public policy.