4 ms·
I kind of thought the generally consistent law was the way you describe it – however my not a lawyer understanding was if the contract requires X which violates
by nmcfarl 11y ago
I kind of thought the generally consistent law was the way you describe it – however my not a lawyer understanding was if the contract requires X which violates the law in a very specific circumstance in a very specific way that particular clause under that particular circumstance, that particular way would be void, but the whole contract would not and would still stand - benefits and burdens combined. Including that clause, under "normal" circumstances.
Which is basically to say my understanding was that, in most countries, you can reasonably sign a legal contract and know you will never have to commit an illegal action in pursuit of it. And if your counterpart in the contract really wants you to commit an illegal action it's on them to decide whether they want to do business in a country where the action is it illegal. Not on you.
Once again, IANAL. And my understanding could be way wrong.
- DannyBee 11y ago"Which is basically to say my understanding was that, in most countries, you can reasonably sign a legal contract and know you will never have to commit an illegal action in pursuit of it. " This is false :)
- nmcfarl 11y agoThat is stupid scary. How does it square with your murder statement above?
- DannyBee 11y agoIf the only way to complete a contract is to perform an illegal act, you will be excused from performance. But if you have an alternative, it's a valid contract for the legal alternative. IE if i say "i'll pay you $1000, and you will deliver to me rice or smuggled opium", this is a valid contract to pay $1000 for rice. Also as i mentioned, you will generally be required to pay restitution. That is, pay back any benefit and least stop using/doing whatever benefit you are accruing(in this case, i presume using the service). So you can't use it to your advantage.