Is violating a valid contract illegal?

[snberk103]

I doubt such an arrangement would be considered legally-binding.

It's a valid contract. There was an offer, there was consideration (something of value was exchanged), and there was acceptance. If the neighbours involved ended up in court - assuming that a court would accept such a trivial case - and if both neighbours agreed to the facts (that is to say that the reneging neighbour admitted that he had offered the ladder, but simply changed his mind) then the judge would have to find that a valid contract existed and that the neighbour with the lawn mower was entitled to some compensation. Perhaps the cost of renting a ladder, perhaps the revenue that he could have obtained had he rented out the lawn mower for cash. But something.

The only reason to get a contract in writing, and to get signatures, and witnesses, is simply to make the "I didn't actually say that" argument pointless.

So... you have a binding contract between two neighbours, involving a trade of a mower and ladder. Is it "illegal" for one to renege?

 

[BaldiMac]

It's a valid contract. There was an offer, there was consideration (something of value was exchanged), and there was acceptance. If the neighbours involved ended up in court - assuming that a court would accept such a trivial case - and if both neighbours agreed to the facts (that is to say that the reneging neighbour admitted that he had offered the ladder, but simply changed his mind) then the judge would have to find that a valid contract existed and that the neighbour with the lawn mower was entitled to some compensation. Perhaps the cost of renting a ladder, perhaps the revenue that he could have obtained had he rented out the lawn mower for cash. But something.

The only reason to get a contract in writing, and to get signatures, and witnesses, is simply to make the "I didn't actually say that" argument pointless.

So... you have a binding contract between two neighbours, involving a trade of a mower and ladder. Is it "illegal" for one to renege?

In that case, yes, I believe it would be illegal. But, again, I don't think such an agreement would be considered legally-binding because there is no intention to be legally bound in most agreements like that.

 

[LorenK]

I provided three definitions from various dictionaries that clarified that illegal does not only refer to criminal, or even statutory, law. I also clarified in the OP that my question was not limited to criminal law.

Then the answer is no, generally speaking, violating a valid contract is not illegal. Why do you ask?

----------

In both cases, you would sue for copyright infringement. Both situations are exactly the same legally. In both situations the magazine/person are making one unauthorized copy of your photograph in violation of your rights as copyright holder.

(Of course, depending on the terms of your contract, you may have specified other rights or penalties in the agreement. But the only term you specified in your scenario was a limit of one copy.)

While copyright can be a matter of contract, it is also a matter of law, i.e. it is both protected under the U.S. Constitution and under statutory law. Violating a copyright gives the holder of the copyright to pursue a civil claim against you, and in certain circumstances, there may be criminal prosecution. It doesn't need a contract to be illegal.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then the answer is no, generally speaking, violating a valid contract is not illegal. Why do you ask?

I disagree. Please read the thread if you are interested in the discussion.

While copyright can be a matter of contract, it is also a matter of law, i.e. it is both protected under the U.S. Constitution and under statutory law. Violating a copyright gives the holder of the copyright to pursue a civil claim against you, and in certain circumstances, there may be criminal prosecution. It doesn't need a contract to be illegal.

I agree completely.

 

[LorenK]

Let me ask you this. In your understanding... Lets say we are neighbours. You and I shake hands on deal where you lend me your lawn mower today, and in exchange you can borrow my ladder next week. I cut my lawn today with your lawn mower, and then I change my mind and don't let you use my ladder. Have I done anything illegal?

Nothing illegal, just breached an oral contract, and your neighbor can sue you for damages for breach of that contract, his cost to obtain a ladder for his purposes.

----------

In that case, yes, I believe it would be illegal. But, again, I don't think such an agreement would be considered legally-binding because there is no intention to be legally bound in most agreements like that.

Was there an intent to exchange value? Most people don't think about whether they are "legally bound" when they agree to something, merely that their immediate intent is that they are agreeing to a "deal". Once you agree and the other performs, then because the one has performed, the other becomes open to damages for his failure to perform, but the failure to perform is not generally "illegal".

If the one enters into the arrangement not intending to perform, then it does become illegal, fraud.

 

[LorenK]

I disagree. Please read the thread if you are interested in the discussion.

Disagree all you want, but you won't be right. You are using the word in an imprecise manner. Illegal can contain a whole lot of behaviors, but once you bring up a contract, then you are in the realm of contract law and illegal is not a word used when dealing with the relationship between the parties to a contract.

Generally being a matter between two private parties, they have no force of law behind them to render the matter illegal. The subject matter of the contract can be illegal, but the violation itself cannot. The parties can be illegal, e.g. not having the right to be where they are they enter into the contract, which might affect their ability to enforce the contract where it was entered into, but the violation of the contract will not become illegal. The violation of the contract can be called a breach, a default, a violation, if you will, but if you were to bring up the matter in a court of law for a breach of contract, or whatever you want to call it, and you said that the violation was illegal and that was the basis of your claim, the judge would give you the stink eye, it is not a term used with respect to contracts.

 

[BaldiMac]

Disagree all you want, but you won't be right. You are using the word in an imprecise manner. Illegal can contain a whole lot of behaviors, but once you bring up a contract, then you are in the realm of contract law and illegal is not a word used when dealing with the relationship between the parties to a contract.

Generally being a matter between two private parties, they have no force of law behind them to render the matter illegal. The subject matter of the contract can be illegal, but the violation itself cannot. The parties can be illegal, e.g. not having the right to be where they are they enter into the contract, which might affect their ability to enforce the contract where it was entered into, but the violation of the contract will not become illegal. The violation of the contract can be called a breach, a default, a violation, if you will, but if you were to bring up the matter in a court of law for a breach of contract, or whatever you want to call it, and you said that the violation was illegal and that was the basis of your claim, the judge would give you the stink eye, it is not a term used with respect to contracts.

Again, you didn't respond to any of my arguments other than saying I was wrong. As I explicitly stated, I am using the word illegal in the way defined in the dictionary. Despite your made up assertion, I would not consider illegality to be the basis of a claim. That's absurd.

----------

Was there an intent to exchange value? Most people don't think about whether they are "legally bound" when they agree to something, merely that their immediate intent is that they are agreeing to a "deal". Once you agree and the other performs, then because the one has performed, the other becomes open to damages for his failure to perform, but the failure to perform is not generally "illegal".

If the one enters into the arrangement not intending to perform, then it does become illegal, fraud.

As I said, intention to be legally bound is a consideration for the courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_be_legally_bound

 

[snberk103]

In that case, yes, I believe it would be illegal. But, again, I don't think such an agreement would be considered legally-binding because there is no intention to be legally bound in most agreements like that.

An oral agreement is legally binding, as legally binding as a written contract. The question is whether it's provable. Writing down the terms of a contract does not make it more "binding"... it simply makes it easier to prove what the terms were should there be a dispute. A 'legal contract' simply means there was an offer, an acceptance, and there was consideration. (Also that both parties were of sound mind and of legal age, and that the terms did not require one of the parties to do something illegal... but you specified a "legal contract".

If you believe that in my scenario (two neighbours) it was "illegal" to not make the ladder available, then we have nothing left to discuss since we have very different ideas of what "illegal" means. I am using it in a 'legal' sense, and you are using it in much broader sense, including the sense that a computer can act "illegally" when a program encroaches into another programs memory. Read your console logs when OS X is having stability issues. ... lots of "illegal" activities are occurring there. I didn't think we were using the term in that broad a sense...but if we are... then I'm afraid I have nothing else to bring to this discussion. You'll need to get some dictionary editors involved to settle your question.

Nothing illegal, just breached an oral contract, and your neighbor can sue you for damages for breach of that contract, his cost to obtain a ladder for his purposes.

Yes. I agree. It's Baldimac we're trying to convince ...

 

[BaldiMac]

An oral agreement is legally binding, as legally binding as a written contract. The question is whether it's provable. Writing down the terms of a contract does not make it more "binding"... it simply makes it easier to prove what the terms were should there be a dispute. A 'legal contract' simply means there was an offer, an acceptance, and there was consideration. (Also that both parties were of sound mind and of legal age, and that the terms did not require one of the parties to do something illegal... but you specified a "legal contract".

Again, as I linked to in the post above yours, intention to be legally bound is also a consideration for the court.

If you believe that in my scenario (two neighbours) it was "illegal" to not make the ladder available, then we have nothing left to discuss since we have very different ideas of what "illegal" means.

Again, I don't think it was illegal because I don't believe such an agreement is legally binding.

I am using it in a 'legal' sense, and you are using it in much broader sense, including the sense that a computer can act "illegally" when a program encroaches into another programs memory. Read your console logs when OS X is having stability issues. ... lots of "illegal" activities are occurring there. I didn't think we were using the term in that broad a sense...but if we are... then I'm afraid I have nothing else to bring to this discussion. You'll need to get some dictionary editors involved to settle your question.

I am using it in the "against the law" sense. The first definition in the dictionary.

 

[snberk103]

Again, as I linked to in the post above yours, intention to be legally bound is also a consideration for the court.

Um, you should re-read that article. In one instance the exception is made for "domestic" situations...i.e. within a household. So, two brothers can't bring each other to court because one brother didn't actually do the dishes in exchange for mowing the lawn (assuming both brothers are of the age of majority). In my scenario both parties are independent of each other, and are therefore not in a domestic situation. In the 2nd case, two independent parties, even after expressly and clearly stating that the agreement was not to go to court, almost had it go to court regardless simply because they had made an agreement that met the 3 prerequisites: Offer, acceptance, consideration.

If we (you and I) were neighbours, and you welshed on a deal... how do you know that I did not intend the agreement to be legally binding? Unless I explicitly stated otherwise, you had better assume I meant it to be binding. In this case - have you done something illegal by not offering up the ladder? (Hypothetically, of course ... )

I notice you are not answering my question, btw.....

 

[BaldiMac]

Um, you should re-read that article. In one instance the exception is made for "domestic" situations...i.e. within a household. So, two brothers can't bring each other to court because one brother didn't actually do the dishes in exchange for mowing the lawn (assuming both brothers are of the age of majority). In my scenario both parties are independent of each other, and are therefore not in a domestic situation. In the 2nd case, two independent parties, even after expressly and clearly stating that the agreement was not to go to court, almost had it go to court regardless simply because they had made an agreement that met the 3 prerequisites: Offer, acceptance, consideration.

Those were examples in a Wiki, not a complete description of all applications of the policy.

If we (you and I) were neighbours, and you welshed on a deal... how do you know that I did not intend the agreement to be legally binding? Unless I explicitly stated otherwise, you had better assume I meant it to be binding.

I don't know. I don't generally assume that an off-hand agreement that I make with a neighbor is legally binding. Legally, I assume it would be decided based on precedents like much of contract law.

In this case - have you done something illegal by not offering up the ladder? (Hypothetically, of course ... )

As I said before, if the agreement was legally-binding than, yes, I believe it would be illegal.

I notice you are not answering my question, btw.....

Not on purpose. Which question did I miss? Or did you miss my earlier answer.

I think what you are trying to do here is rig the question a bit. You've designed a scenario that appears frivolous, but insisted that it be given legal standing. And then, I assume your point is that it is frivolous to give it legal standing.

 

[rei101]

1. A "contract" is an agreement between 2 people. If you brake the "contract" you should respond based on the terms of the contract.

2. Every contract has to created in legality. For example, you can not sing a contract where you go against the humanity of anybody, in other words... you can not kill or slave someone or yourself. If you meant that, the contract is illegal itself.

But...

You can have a contract making someone to clean you pool ever Saturday for a month, IF that person miss one day you are enable to not paying the entire month if both parts signed the contract. That contract is legal, and if is broken you are not braking any law. UNLESS there is an actual law regarding cleaning pools on Saturdays.

Contracts are legal agreements where legal penalties are established.

 

[snberk103]

Those were examples in a Wiki, not a complete description of all applications of the policy.

I'm not the one who introduced that article . If I recall correctly you brought it into the debate to rebut my point that an agreement between neighbours could be a binding contract. So, are we agreed that an agreement between neighbours can be a valid and binding contract?

I don't know. I don't generally assume that an off-hand agreement that I make with a neighbor is legally binding.

Which is why I was careful to state that there was a clear and precise agreement between them.

Legally, I assume it would be decided based on precedents like much of contract law.

Yes. ( If it didn't get laughed out of court first..... )

As I said before, if the agreement was legally-binding than, yes, I believe it would be illegal.

Thank you. As I said before, then... I have nothing further to add because you are using word "illegal" in a way that I and a law student don't, and that encompasses a very broad sense of the word. By the way, my computer did something "illegal" on the 17th of this month.

17-07-12 9:10:42.503 AM Mail: IMAPClientFetchOperation: skipping header "mailtags keyword" (illegal character U+0020)

Not on purpose. Which question did I miss? Or did you miss my earlier answer.

You weren't quite answering the 'is the ladder-welshing illegal' question, without adding conditions and clarifications. But you have now, above.

I think what you are trying to do here is rig the question a bit.

Of course I am. What I am trying to do is get to the essence of the question: Offer/Acceptance/Consideration and then seeing if you thought that breaking an extremely simple version of a contract was still illegal. You did.. and I will give you credit for consistency! So now we simply disagree on how far a net the word "illegal" covers... which is semantics and not logic.

You've designed a scenario that appears frivolous, but insisted that it be given legal standing.

Yes. The system is supposed to protect all citizens, regardless of wealth and power. If, as you argue, something is 'illegal' then it is just as 'illegal' for two people who are exchanging $100 worth of services as it is for two companies exchanging $100 Million worth of services. The only difference is in the size of the economic damages that can be collected.

And then, I assume your point is that it is frivolous to give it legal standing.

Naw... my point was to catch you making an inconsistent argument.

But I'm serious about the size of the contracts. A contract is a contract, and is just as binding between neighbours as between companies. And that an oral contract is just as binding as a written one. The only difference is how provable a contract is, and whether a court feels it's worth their resources to settle something really small. Doesn't make a small contract less binding, it just makes it less enforceable by a court.

But... since you are using the word in a way I don't... I don't think there is much left to argue about.

How about this... if my neighbour pulls into my driveway - without permission - to turn around, is it illegal? By your definition it seems it would be, and frankly... I have better things to argue about.

 

[Hellhammer]

You can have a contract making someone to clean you pool ever Saturday for a month, IF that person miss one day you are enable to not paying the entire month if both parts signed the contract. That contract is legal, and if is broken you are not braking any law. UNLESS there is an actual law regarding cleaning pools on Saturdays.

Even that case is not as simple as it sounds. In order to take money for work, you need to have a company. You will need to keep track of all your company's income and outcome, pay taxes and so on, even if you're the only employee.

Of course, people do undeclared work a lot but the legal protection is also a lot smaller. Are you sure you want to sue someone when there is a high risk that the taxman will be taking a deep look into your earnings? A written contract in this case is even riskier because it's also written proof that you're doing undeclared work.

 

[rei101]

Even that case is not as simple as it sounds. In order to take money for work, you need to have a company. You will need to keep track of all your company's income and outcome, pay taxes and so on, even if you're the only employee.

Of course, people do undeclared work a lot but the legal protection is also a lot smaller. Are you sure you want to sue someone when there is a high risk that the taxman will be taking a deep look into your earnings? A written contract in this case is even riskier because it's also written proof that you're doing undeclared work.

What are you talking about? " Is violating a valid contract illegal?"

Then... you can charge what ever you want without having a company. You are taking what I wrote to some place in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[Hellhammer]

What are you talking about? " Is violating a valid contract illegal?"

Then... you can charge what ever you want without having a company. You are taking what I wrote to some place in a galaxy far, far away.

You didn't get what I mean. Lets see this through an example. John asks Jay to clean his pool every week for $100 a month. They make a written contract and both get their own copies. However, when Jay asks for his salary John decides that he will only pay $70, even though Jay's work has been flawless. What can Jay do?

The contract in this case is not legally binding because Jay has no right to take money for his services. If the contract was between John and Jay's Pool Cleaning Service, then Jay's Pool Cleaning Service could go to court.

My point is that contracts made between two individuals are often not legal to begin with. There are some, of course, but especially when it comes to work and has something to do with money, it's not legit.

 

[snberk103]

....
You can have a contract making someone to clean you pool ever Saturday for a month, IF that person miss one day you are enable to not paying the entire month if both parts signed the contract. That contract is legal, and if is broken you are not braking any law. UNLESS there is an actual law regarding cleaning pools on Saturdays.

Contracts are legal agreements where legal penalties are established.

In Canada (at least) that is not how it works. The pool cleaner is still entitled to be be paid for the work that they have done. You can't penalize a month's salary for missing one day, you can only withhold the pay for the day worked. This is because in your example the person working would be considered an employee, and the contract - and it would be in fact a contract - is overridden by employment standards legislation. If the contract stipulated that a month's salary would be withheld for missing one day's work, then that section would be considered unenforceable, even though the other sections would continue.

Even that case is not as simple as it sounds. In order to take money for work, you need to have a company. You will need to keep track of all your company's income and outcome, pay taxes and so on, even if you're the only employee.
...

Again, at least here in Canada, you can accept money for providing services as an individual. You still have to declare the money as income to the tax people, but there is no requirement that you form a "company" first. Municipalities may insist you get a business license, and may prohibit certain employment activities in your home - for instance melting down scrap metal in your apartment would be forbidden. But if you wanted to mow people's lawns for a living, then all you need to do is declare the income - and at a revenue threshold you need to also collect and remit the national sales tax.

But of course different countries may do things differently.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not the one who introduced that article . If I recall correctly you brought it into the debate to rebut my point that an agreement between neighbours could be a binding contract. So, are we agreed that an agreement between neighbours can be a valid and binding contract?

I introduced the article simply as proof that the concept exists, not as a complete explanation of it's application.

Which is why I was careful to state that there was a clear and precise agreement between them.
Yes. ( If it didn't get laughed out of court first..... )

You seem to be waffling here. The agreement is either legally binding or its not. If the court is unwilling to enforce it, than it's not legally binding.

Thank you. As I said before, then... I have nothing further to add because you are using word "illegal" in a way that I and a law student don't, and that encompasses a very broad sense of the word.

The problem is that neither you nor a law student are willing to show how the common definitions of the word disagree with my use of the word. (I also linked to a JD cum laude that agrees with my use of the word. )

I guess another way to look at the question as I see it is whether you believe that it is illegal to violate the rights of another person as defined by the law.

By the way, my computer did something "illegal" on the 17th of this month.

Again, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I posted three definitions directly from various dictionaries that were very clearly referring to the use of the word with respect to the law. Please stop trying to mischaracterize my argument.

Yes. The system is supposed to protect all citizens, regardless of wealth and power. If, as you argue, something is 'illegal' then it is just as 'illegal' for two people who are exchanging $100 worth of services as it is for two companies exchanging $100 Million worth of services. The only difference is in the size of the economic damages that can be collected.

Exactly. You can apply the same logic to the rights that the law grants people. It is just as illegal to violate the rights of a person granted by contract law as it is to violate any other rights granted by the law.

How about this... if my neighbour pulls into my driveway - without permission - to turn around, is it illegal? By your definition it seems it would be, and frankly... I have better things to argue about.

I have no idea why that would be illegal.

 

[snberk103]

I introduced the article simply as proof that the concept exists, not as a complete explanation of it's application.

Perhaps. But the concept doesn't apply to this situation.

You seem to be waffling here. The agreement is either legally binding or its not. If the court is unwilling to enforce it, than it's not legally binding.

Nah... I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. If I tried to take this to small claims court I would have a bunch of court workers trying to get this diverted into various alternative dispute resolution processes. The courts are busy, and they would rather we worked it out without taxpayer funded courts. However, if I could get it in front of a judge I'd likely get a court order in my favour for the monetary damages (renting a ladder, perhaps) plus court costs.

There is a difference between "binding" and "enforceable". A valid contract is binding (when signed) whether or not it can be enforced later. In my neighbours scenario, let's say the neighbours did in fact write down the terms, and that it's a valid contract. The neighbour with the ladder welshes on the deal, and the 2nd neighbour takes him to court - but can't find the written contract to prove his case. The neighbour with the ladder lies about the agreement, so the judge rules that there are no damages because the judge can not be certain that a contract actually existed. The contract, when signed, was binding... it's just not enforceable now that it's gone to court because it's not provable. I don't know if this case can be re-opened after it's been decided should the contract be found... hmm

The problem is that neither you nor a law student are willing to show how the common definitions of the word disagree with my use of the word. (I also linked to a JD cum laude that agrees with my use of the word. )

We've already determined that you are using the word in the broadest possible way, which may be current in common street usage and includes the fact that my computer does something illegally weekly, but not necessarily technically accurate when used by the people in the profession. I'm a photographer (model/property releases are contracts, which is why I know about this area). Lots of people use photographic terms "commonly", and I bet I could find some in a dictionary. But that doesn't make the term technically correct. It just means a lot of people use the term wrong.

I guess another way to look at the question as I see it is whether you believe that it is illegal to violate the rights of another person as defined by the law.

How did we get into rights? A contract has nothing to do with your "rights". There is a precedent in certain countries that if someone has made a valid agreement with you, reneges on the deal, and you are economically damaged by their action - then you can sue them for those damages. Or are you now going to expand the definition of "rights"?

Again, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I posted three definitions directly from various dictionaries that were very clearly referring to the use of the word with respect to the law.

Three definitions that were not talking about contracts specifically, iirc....

[my comment about a neighbour using your driveway to turn around, without permission]

....

I have no idea why that would be illegal.

They would be trespassing...

 

[BaldiMac]

Perhaps. But the concept doesn't apply to this situation.
Nah... I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. If I tried to take this to small claims court I would have a bunch of court workers trying to get this diverted into various alternative dispute resolution processes. The courts are busy, and they would rather we worked it out without taxpayer funded courts. However, if I could get it in front of a judge I'd likely get a court order in my favour for the monetary damages (renting a ladder, perhaps) plus court costs.

There is a difference between "binding" and "enforceable". A valid contract is binding (when signed) whether or not it can be enforced later. In my neighbours scenario, let's say the neighbours did in fact write down the terms, and that it's a valid contract. The neighbour with the ladder welshes on the deal, and the 2nd neighbour takes him to court - but can't find the written contract to prove his case. The neighbour with the ladder lies about the agreement, so the judge rules that there are no damages because the judge can not be certain that a contract actually existed. The contract, when signed, was binding... it's just not enforceable now that it's gone to court because it's not provable. I don't know if this case can be re-opened after it's been decided should the contract be found... hmm
We've already determined that you are using the word in the broadest possible way, which may be current in common street usage and includes the fact that my computer does something illegally weekly, but not necessarily technically accurate when used by the people in the profession. I'm a photographer (model/property releases are contracts, which is why I know about this area). Lots of people use photographic terms "commonly", and I bet I could find some in a dictionary. But that doesn't make the term technically correct. It just means a lot of people use the term wrong.

Now, you are just arguing semantics and changing the discussion completely. I never said anything about "technically accurate when used by the people in the industry. That's akin to arguing that an iPhone is not a computer because it's more accurately called a smartphone. That's just silly.

And, again, your use of the word "illegal" in terms of an illegal operation on a computer is a separate, different definition of the word than I quoted.

How did we get into rights? A contract has nothing to do with your "rights". There is a precedent in certain countries that if someone has made a valid agreement with you, reneges on the deal, and you are economically damaged by their action - then you can sue them for those damages. Or are you now going to expand the definition of "rights"?

I guess this is our fundamental disagreement here. Contract law defines your rights and duties as an adherent to a legally-binding contract. The same way copyright law defines your rights to a copyrighted work.

Three definitions that were not talking about contracts specifically, iirc....

I have no idea what you are getting at here. The word means what it means.

They would be trespassing...

I don't really want to go off on this tangent, but I assume there are many legal exceptions to trespassing laws.

 

[snberk103]

OK, you're right. It is illegal to breach a contract. In the same sense that it is illegal for me to put 7 players on the ice during a hockey game, which would also be infringing on the rights of the other team's players. Bad me.

Off to the box, eh?!

 

[BaldiMac]

OK, you're right. It is illegal to breach a contract. In the same sense that it is illegal for me to put 7 players on the ice during a hockey game, which would also be infringing on the rights of the other team's players. Bad me.

Off to the box, eh?!

Please stop mischaracterizing my argument. You keep repeating a strawman. All three definitions that I posted referred to violation of the law. Not the rules of a sport. And not the rules of computer software.

 

[snberk103]

Please stop mischaracterizing my argument. You keep repeating a strawman. All three definitions that I posted referred to violation of the law. Not the rules of a sport. And not the rules of computer software.

From Merriam-Webster: "Illegal: not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)"
From Dictionary.com: "Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass."

Ok.... seriously....

Just as background here are two links that you may find interesting.

An Australian handbook on contracts:

And Expert Law's article on contracts:

Which has made me think some more. If two parties to a contract simply disagree about the interpretation of a term, an honest disagreement, but one that they can not settle between themselves so they go to court and the court rules that one party was in breach and therefore compensation is due. Is that "illegal" in the sense that you are using the word.

For instance, a Canadian company has agreed to sell widgets at $2.00 each to an American company. Payment is made promptly for the delivery, but the contract did not specify the currency, so the Canadian company thought it would get Canadian dollars from the American company, but American company paid in US dollars. The Canadian company claims "breach of contract" since they didn't get paid as much as they thought they were owed, and the court agrees with Canadian company because the contract was signed in Canada. Since the US company has technically been found in "breach of contract" have they done something "illegal?"

Or what if the breach is outside of one party's control. You buy a ticket to see a concert (which is a contract) and the band never shows up. The venue has breached its contract with you - you paid to see a band, and you didn't see that band. Have they done something "illegal?". Assuming that they refund the ticket price to you, so that is not issue.

Reading the links above has, in my mind, confirmed that a "breach of contract" is not - in and of itself - illegal in that there is no particular statute (or common law) that says you must perform a contract (with the exceptions specified in consumer protections laws, etc that we've covered above). But - the law says that if you do breach a contract then you must compensate the wronged party.

Going back to my neighbours, ladder, lawn mower scenario. If the person with the ladder lets the neighbour use the ladder, but then decides to get a goat and never uses the lawn mower - the contract is still breached in that not all of the terms have been fulfilled. However in this case there are no damages (assuming the goat doesn't escape!) (That's humour, btw) and therefore no grounds to go to court. It's still breached... just that there is no harm. Is that illegal? Do I have to borrow the lawn mower if I don't want to stray into the area of doing something illegal?

 

[claygreenberg]

Baldimac,

The law (including contract law) lives and breathes on precise and deliberate use of language, and it rarely relies on definitions contained in non-legal dictionaries. As another poster stated earlier in the thread, the word "illegal" is simply not used in the context of breach of contract. In fact, it is really used only when questioning whether a contract is valid.

Several posters have done a good job illustrating why it does not make sense to call a breach of contract illegal. I have also attempted, perhaps inarticulately, to explain that the validity of a contract is not determined unless and until it is challenged in court or mediation. Therefore, you cannot jump to the question of whether it is illegal to breach only valid contracts. To do so would require you to forecast with ultimate congidence whether or not the contract can stand as valid in a court of law. This is not possible.

Furthermore, while it is true that a contract is "legally binding," you have to understand that the word "legal" has a broader meaning than merely being the opposite of "illegal." It refers to the legal system of courts and enforceable judgments. When we say a contract is "legally binding," it means that each party has the right to seek damages through the legal system if they believe the contract has been breached and caused them harm. it does not mean that any breach of the contract is a breach of law ("illegal").

Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of contract disputes are settled between the parties without ever reaching a court of law should help to convince you that a breach is not illegal. That is because the only factor to be considered in a breach of contract is whether eithet party has suffered resulting damages and whether they have a right under tye common to be "made whole" by an award granted to them by a court. When an illegal act has occurred, private parties do not have the right to settle because there are greater considerations than merely making the parties whole.

A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. It does not create a "law." The act of breaching a contract is not illegal. In fact, in some cases the act of performing a contract may be illegal and subject to criminal charges if the terms of the contract are illegal.

 

[chown33]

Having read the entire thread, the only question I have is this:

What difference does it make?
​

Is there some technical point of law that hinges on the precise definition of the word "illegal", as there is for words like "felony" or "tort" or "breach of contract"? Is there a difference in punishment between being adjudged guilty of an unadorned "in breach of contract" vs. being "illegally in breach of contract"?

Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, I don't see how the presence or absence of the word "illegal" (or "legal", in the sense of "the opposite of illegal") makes any difference whatsoever.

In my experience, breaches of contract are called breaches of contract, being one aspect of a larger class of civil wrongs called torts. Commission of a misdemeanor or a felony is called a misdemeanor or a felony, not "illegal" except informally. Then there are transgressions like parking tickets, and I'm not even sure what those are called, since not every traffic violation is necessarily a misdemeanor or a felony.

This whole thing seems to me like a distinction without a difference. There may be some as-yet unexplained purpose to the argument from a philosophical viewpoint, but I see no purpose at all when it comes to the law or any punitive measures.

If there is a difference to this distinction, I'd like to know what it is.

It reminds me of the distinction between "unity" and "one" in mathematics. There is none; the terms are interchangeable. The only difference is convention: "unity" is used in some conventions, and "one" is used in others. The meaning is identical. (And someone will probably disagree with me on that, convinced of my benighted ignorance.)