We learned that a minor glitch in one of the 3 elements is not necessarily fatal–that a problem–or BREACH of Contract, has to be a “Material Breach” to make the contract “Voidable.”

Voidable contracts are not worthless on their face–they are “Voidable” meaning one party can legally terminate the contract without legal ramifications. In the absence of termination, the contract remains enforceable. A “Void” contract is different–avoid contract is void on its face and not enforceable. A “Voidable” contract would be a contract to purchase a “Time machine.” If the seller does not produce an actual working Time Machine, the buyer has the right to tell him to buzz off–and not pay him, thus voiding the contract.
A “Void” contract is not enforceable and never was–but in some cases can be in the future. Can you think of any examples? What if you sell your neighbors 12 year old a lawn mower for a grossly inflated price–thrilled that you “Outsmarted the little idiot.” Well, you may be thinking it’s the inflated price that blew the deal–but it’s actually the age of the buyer. Contracts to sell goods to minors are void on their face–Minors are considered legally insane (non compis mentis) and thus unable to enter into a contract.

How in the world could that become enforceable in the future?

Well, if the 12 year old is making payments on the $80,000.00 lawn mower every month like clockwork–when he becomes of age and makes another payment–it becomes an enforceable contract. How screwed up is that?

What if the contract is for sexual services? You have an offer, acceptance and consideration, right? Contracts to purchase illegal goods or services are “Void.” Not Voidable–they are unenforceable because they are illegal. You buy a quarter bag from your neighbor and he sells you Oregano? Call the cops? Hardly. Though I did see one episode of “Cops” where the lady bought a $20.00 rock of crack from a lady who stiffed her. Unbelievable. The contract is not enforceable if the goods or services being purchased are not legal in the first place. So next time you feel like you didn’t get your money’s worth from your, um, escort–leave it alone, my friend…..leave it alone.
I am a Christian and want you to know that we all make ridiculous mistakes–so when I tell these stories I am not condoning that behavior–just telling you whether it’s legal or not. The years I did Criminal Defense work showed me that all of us are fallen, so don’t even THINK about pointing your finger at anyone but yourself. I can’t, and you don’t either.

Today, I want to talk about contracts.  A contract hinges on 3 things, 1. Offer  2. Acceptance and 3.  Consideration.  Easy, right?  Libraries have been filled with the variations of these 3 nuggets, so “No”, not easy.  Here’s the thing, An offer is anything–Hey Bob, I will sell you my mower for $50.00.  An acceptance, too–can be anything.  2. Sure Julie, I will accept your offer to sell me your mower for $50.00.  No problem, right?  The Consideration is simply the money….the $50.00.  So, why so complex?

Well, Eric and Julie are friendly, but not friends.  She knows he’s broke, and he knows she knows, which is why he fully intends to pay her $50.00, $5.00 a week for 10 weeks.  Well, Julie needs cash money and is not in the finance business–so she says “I want the full amount in one payment.”  Eric can’t do it, but she HAD to know he would pay it out, so according to Eric, she is in breach of their Contract.  She had no idea he would want to finance it, so she believes he is in breach of Contract.

The overriding question in this case is whether the problem is a ‘material breach’ of contract.  Courts have held that payment is material, so if there is a problem with the method of payment, it’s a big enough problem to void the contract if it isn’t clear.  If Eric said, “Man, I thought you were delivering it to my house!” and they live next door to each other–it’s not material.  Since the method of payment is in fact material, Eric will have to give the mower back or pay for it in full.  If he refuses to give the mower back and continues to make his payments, she will be able to sue him and recover the mower as well as attorney fees and damages, because he is the one in breach of the contract.  The problem with this contract is not with the offer, not with the acceptance–but with consideration.

Next month we will talk about different kinds of contracts and whether a contract for sexual performance is enforceable.  You will be surprised.