void contract

DEFINATION

A CONTRACT THAT MEETS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: (1) IT IS ILLEGAL FROM THE MOMENT IT IS MADE; (2) IT IS LEGAL BUT DECLARED NULL BY THE COURTS BECAUSE IT VIOLATES A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE SUCH AS FAIRNESS, OR IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY; (3) IT BECOMES VOID DUE TO CHANGES IN LAW OR IN GOVERNMENT POLICY; OR (4) IT HAS BEEN FULLY PERFORMED.

Lack of capacity to contract (such as arises from being an infant or minor, intoxicated, or insane) automatically makes a contract void. A contract that is void only in one or few parts may be saved by the process of severance. Not to be confused with voidable contract.

void contract
Geoff Baker's story on Milton Bradley's arrest today quotes a former general manager saying that it would take specific language in Bradley's contract for the Mariners to be able to avoid paying the remaining $12 million he is owed. "It depends on the guarantee language," the person told Geoff. "If the guarantee language includes a felony conviction, it allows the contract to be converted to a non-guaranteed form if that player is convicted of a felony." Generally, when teams have tried to void contracts in the past, they have relied on paragraph 7(b)1 of the uniform player's contract, which states that a contract can be voided if a player "shall fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or keep himself in first-class physical condition.'' Paragraph 3 (a), furthermore, states that "The player agrees to perform his services hereunder diligently and faithfully, to keep himself in first-class physical condition and to obey the club's training rules, and pledges himself to the American public and to the club to conform to high standards of personal conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship.'' Sounds pretty straight forward, but the union has been able to fend off attempts to invoke that clause. Here are three examples: 1) Denny Neagle, Rockies. In early December of 2004, Neagle was cited in Lakewood, Colorado on suspicion of soliciting a prostitute. A woman in his car told police Neagle had paid her $40 for oral sex. It was the second brush with the law for Neagle, who had signed a five-year, $51-million contract with the Rockies before the 2001 season and given them a combined 17-23 record in the first three years. In 2003, he had been charged with driving under the influence. The solicitation incident occurred on a Friday. The following Monday, the Rockies terminated Neagle's contract, and tried to get out of paying the remaining $19 million they owed him by citing section 7(b)1 of the uniform contract. Neagle was due to make $10 million in 2005 and had a $9 million buyout of a $12.5 million team option for 2006. The players assocation immediately filed a grievance to overturn Neagle's termination. The case was heard in May of 2005 by arbitrator Shyam Das, and the two sides reached a settlement. The Denver Post reported that the Rockies had to pay Neagle "roughly $16 million" of the $19.5 million he was seeking to regain. The newspaper said the settlement was reached during a recess in the hearing, following the testimony of Rockies president Keli McGregor. So while Neagle got most of his money, the Rockies did recoup about $3 million for their efforts.

void contract
The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 [1] January 2007. The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under theTheft Act 1978.

void contract
u.s. virgin islands officials found guilty in $1.4 million bribery and Kickback scheme
Following a 2-week trial, a federal jury in St. Thomas found a former Commissioner of the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) guilty of demanding and accepting bribes and obstructing justice. The same jury also found a former Commissioner of the Department of Property and Procurement guilty of demanding and accepting bribes in a $1.4 million bribery and kickback scheme. The former commissioners were charged with demanding and accepting a series of bribes and kickbacks in exchange for awarding approximately $1.4 million in government contracts and then authorizing more than $1 million in payments on these contracts, despite little or no work having been performed. They were also charged with obstructing justice, stemming from attempts to thwart the criminal investigation into the underlying bribery and kickback scheme. One commissioner was sentenced to 9 years in prison to be followed by 3 years of probation. He was ordered to be held liable, along with several other defendants, for a monetary judgment in the approximate amount of $1.1 million. The other commissioner was sentenced to 7 years in prison to be followed by 3 years of probation. He was also ordered to be held liable, along with several other defendants, for a monetary judgment in the amount of $960,482. Four individuals, including three other former U.S. Virgin Islands government officials, pleaded guilty to violating the federal bribery statute, honest services mail fraud, and structuring currency transactions in furtherance of the underlying bribery and kickback scheme. The three defendants were sentenced to prison ranging from 21 months to 4 years and ordered to pay restitution in the approximate amount of $1.1 million. In addition, a former DPNR Director of Permits pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct the criminal investigation into the bribery and kickback scheme. The four individuals and others formed a sham business and used the entity, as well as other companies, to seek and be awarded at least seven government contracts valued at approximately $1.4 million. The contracts were authorized and awarded by the former commissioner. Once the contract proceeds were negotiated, the officials kept a portion of the illicit proceeds for themselves and paid cash bribes and kickbacks totaling between $300,000 and $350,000 to various government officials.

void contract