Also known as: public ordre · public policy · public order
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fundamental principle of public policy that renders certain agreements or applications of law unenforceable when they contravene essential societal interests. Courts invoke the principle to void contractual terms that eliminate statutory protections, to refuse recognition of foreign law, or to invalidate trusts and servitudes whose purposes undermine core community values.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orla O'Malley signed a lease allowing her landlord to change the locks without court process if she held over after termination. When the landlord attempted self-help, Orla challenged the clause. The court refused to enforce the provision because the controlling law provided a speedy judicial remedy and therefore treated the contractual authorization as void.
Owen Ortega signed a gym membership that expressly released the facility from liability for injuries caused by its own negligence during equipment use. After Owen suffered harm from a negligently maintained machine, he sued. The court held the release unenforceable because it violated public policy protecting patrons from reckless conduct.
Olivia Owens created a trust directing the trustee to pay beneficiaries only if they committed certain regulatory violations. The beneficiaries sought enforcement after the trustee refused distribution. The court declared the trust invalid because its purpose was contrary to public policy and therefore could not be given effect.
Orchard Farms borrowed against its land and later agreed that any attempt to redeem after default would automatically convert the mortgage into a deed. When the farm sought to redeem by tendering payment, the lender resisted. The court struck the conversion clause as an impermissible clog on the equity of redemption.
Overland Transport held a servitude allowing heavy truck access across residential parcels. A neighboring owner argued the servitude should be read to permit only daytime use. The court adopted the narrower reading because it better avoided conflict with public policy favoring quiet enjoyment of homes.
Orlando Okafor and Olga O'Neill married solely to obtain immigration benefits and signed a separate writing stating neither would provide support or share assets. When Olga later sought support, Orlando invoked the writing. The court refused to enforce the collateral agreement because it contradicted the obligations inherent in marriage.
A waiver violates ordre public when it expressly releases a party from liability for negligent or reckless conduct and enforcement would undermine a strong statutory or common-law policy protecting the waiving party. Courts weigh the parties' expectations against the public interest in deterring harmful conduct and preserving remedies.
Supporting sources
…Stat. § 940.04 (6) (1969), and the new Connecticut Statute, Pub. Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session), declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent "to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception." [^maj-56]: Edelstein 16. [^maj-57]: Lader 97-99; D. Feldman, Birth Control in…
…of lawyers demanding broad judicial remedies—inevitably undermines administrative effectiveness and defeats fundamental public policy by encouraging "end runs" around the administrative process. It is apparent without discussion that resort to the local appeals board in this case would have furthered these policies,…
…Id. , at 493, n. 9. An obvious illustration of this point would be a case finding unconscionable or unenforceable as against public policy consumer arbitration agreements that fail to provide for judicially monitored discovery. The rationalizations for such a holding are neither difficult to imagine nor different in kind from…
…before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy
…discretion. Like most rules, this one has its exceptions. And those exceptions are grounded primarily in considerations of public policy and of sound administration of justice. In the past, this Court has seen fit to determine various common law issues affecting only the District of Columbia. Aldridge v. United States ,…
A trust is invalid to the extent its purpose is unlawful or contrary to public policy. If the trust directs conduct that violates criminal law or fundamental societal norms, courts refuse to enforce it even if the settlor's intent is clear.
Supporting sources
Clogging occurs when a mortgage agreement unreasonably restricts or waives the mortgagor's right to redeem the property before foreclosure. Such provisions are treated as contrary to public policy because they undermine the mortgagor's statutory and equitable right to clear title upon payment of the debt.
Supporting sources
Courts prefer an interpretation that avoids violating public policy when multiple reasonable readings exist. The rule directs selection of the construction most consistent with public policy unless the parties' intent clearly requires a different result.
Supporting sources
Collateral agreements that contradict the essential obligations of marriage, such as mutual support, are invalid as contrary to public policy. Courts refuse to enforce side deals that convert a marriage into a sham transaction while still recognizing the marriage itself under traditional rules.
Supporting sources