100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Summary contract £7.49   Add to cart

Summary

Summary contract

 8 views  0 purchase

Summary of 14 pages for the course Contract at UoW (illegality)

Preview 2 out of 14  pages

  • December 17, 2021
  • 14
  • 2019/2020
  • Summary
All documents for this subject (20)
avatar-seller
vickyhoney
ILLEGALITY


Introduction

“It is a principle of public policy that no court will lend its aid to a man who founds
his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.”

Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 Lord Mansfield


The Latin maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio: ‘no action arises from a disgraceful
cause’ has long been taken as expressing the public policy that an illegal contract
cannot be enforced either directly under the law of contract or indirectly for
example using the law of torts or the law of unjust enrichment.


“The illegality doctrine relates to contracts which are illegal or contrary to public
policy (hereafter ‘illegal contracts’). Contracts may be tainted because:
● making such contracts is itself prohibited, or

● more usually because its means (the method of performance) is illegal; or

● the contract’s ends (purposes) are illegal.”

Mindy Chen-Wishart, Contract Law (5th ed OUP 2015) W2.1


Potential effect of Illegality

The contract is unenforceable:

e.g. Carlill v Carboilic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 where it was argued that the
agreement was a wagering contract and therefore unenforceable.

A non-contractual remedy (e.g. tort or unjust enrichment) may also be denied if to
grant it would be to condone the illegality:

Awwad v Geraghty [2001] Q.B. 570: a contract was contrary to statute and the party
was also prevented from binging a quantum meruit claim to be paid a reasonable
sum for work done – “If the court, for reasons of public policy refuses to enforce an
agreement that a solicitor should be paid it must follow that he cannot claim on a
quantum meruit.” Schiemann LJ 596

Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, a claim would be barred if the claimant had to rely
on the illegality to bring the claim. This is the so-called reliance test and is rejected
by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza below.

1

, 2

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller vickyhoney. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart