ODG archive
 

ODG front page

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Search ODG site

   

 

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:25:42

From: Hector MacQueen

Subject: Illegal contracts and restitution

 

Dear Jason

Today's London Times contains a story under the headline, "A contract is still a contract - even if it is a contract to kill". The gist of the story is that a depressive woman paid a man a total of £20,000 over a series of transactions, the deal being that he would find a hitman to kill her. He didn't do this, and kept the money instead. She sued him for breach of contract (it says in The Times), and yesterday Maidstone Crown Court ordered him to pay her, not the £20,000, but £2,000. It seems, on closer inspection of the story, that the case was actually a criminal prosecution, not a civil action, and that the conman was jailed, the £2,000 being paid under a compensation order made by the court. None the less, from an obligations point of view, it's surely an interesting set of facts.

When I lecture first year law students on illegal contracts, I always give the hired assassin as the easy example of the person whose contract can't be enforced by either party; and probably restitution of any advance payments made won't be ordered either. But here the assassin is, so to speak, one step removed from the contracting parties. Can the would-be victim (another distinction from the usual case, because she is a party to the contract) enforce the deal, either by way of specific performance (surely unlikely) or a claim for damages? If so, could that include emotional trauma damages? Can she alternatively seek restitution if the contract is void or voidable for fraud? The latter seems more attractive to me than the other two possibilities.

From the other perspective (the potential recipient of the money), what happens if he finds a hitman but then the would-be victim doesn't pay up (and, say, perhaps, that he has already paid the hitman)? Presumably unenforceable and no question of restitution?

Anyway, my conclusion is that the Times headline is wrong in law. What do others think?

 

yrs

Hector

--
Hector L MacQueen
Professor of Private Law
Director, AHRC Research Centre Intellectual Property and Technology Law Edinburgh Law School University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9YL UK
Tel: (0)131-650-2060; Fax: (0)131-662-6317

 

 


<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index   ~  Next Message >>>>>


 

 
Webspace provided by UCC
  »
»
»
»
»
  Comments and suggestions are welcome - contact s.hedley@ucc.ie