Also known as: void against public policy · public policy voidance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that renders unenforceable any agreement or contractual provision conflicting with established societal interests or statutory mandates. Courts apply the doctrine when enforcement would undermine legislative goals or fundamental equitable principles such as the right to redeem mortgaged property or the availability of judicial remedies for possession disputes. The doctrine operates as a limit on freedom of contract rather than a punishment for the parties.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Helen granted First Dev a mortgage on her data center in exchange for a loan. A separate side letter provided that missing a single payment would cause title to vest permanently in First Dev with no opportunity to cure or redeem. After Helen missed one installment First Dev recorded a deed transferring ownership. Helen tendered the full amount due but First Dev refused. The side letter is unenforceable because it clogs the equity of redemption.
A testatrix left property to her son on the condition that he no longer live with his wife and obtain a divorce. The son remained married and the estate sought to enforce the conditions. The court refused enforcement because the conditions would tend to disrupt family relations and offered an improper motive for ending the marriage.
A rent-controlled tenant sought to allow his life partner to remain in the apartment after the tenant vacated. The lease contained a clause limiting occupancy to persons related by blood marriage or adoption. The court held the clause unenforceable because the statute protects unrelated occupants who maintain a close relationship with the tenant of record.
A buyer purchased a new car containing a warranty that limited the manufacturer's liability for personal injuries. The limitation was printed in fine print and was not called to the buyer's attention or separately negotiated. The court refused to enforce the limitation because it was not fairly and honestly negotiated and understandingly entered into.
An employee signed an agreement waiving rights under a state labor statute in exchange for continued employment. The employer later sought to enforce the waiver after the employee asserted statutory claims. The court declined to enforce the waiver because it contravened the legislative policy expressed in the statute.
Courts apply the doctrine to agreements that clog the equity of redemption in mortgages, authorize self-help lockouts when a speedy judicial remedy exists, impose unnegotiated limitations on liability in consumer contracts, and waive statutory protections without required safeguards such as independent counsel or disclosure.
Supporting sources
…1911); S. S. Ansaldo San Giorgio I v. Rheinstrom Bros. Co. , 294 U. S. 494, 55 S. Ct. 483, 79 L. Ed. 1016 (1935) (clause void as against public policy); Ferris v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. , 143 Minn. 90, 173 N. W. 178 (Sup. Ct. 1919); Healy v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. , 153 App. Div. 516, 138 N. Y. S. 287 (1912). The…
…such a clause in consumer goods conditional sale contracts, chattel mortgages, and other instruments of like character is void as against public policy
…marital status, both in regard to no longer living with his wife and with reference to securing a divorce from her, are
…apartments as long as the tenant of record continues to reside there. Lease provisions to the contrary are rendered void as against public policy
The doctrine applies to both. Provisions in wills that condition gifts on divorce or separation are void because they tend to disrupt family relations. Similarly, conditions in trusts that terminate interests upon divorce have been invalidated on public-policy grounds.
Supporting sources
No. Even sophisticated commercial parties cannot contract around the rule when a statute or equitable principle embodies a clear public policy. Self-help lockout clauses remain void when a speedy judicial remedy exists, and redemption-clogging provisions remain void regardless of the parties' bargaining power.
Supporting sources
When a statute sets a bright-line eligibility rule such as a minimum age of twenty-one for a surrogate, an agreement that fails to meet the requirement is void. Informal administrative clearance or estoppel arguments cannot override the legislative mandate.
Supporting sources