Void vs Voidable Agreement Case Analysis


Void vs. Voidable Agreement Case Analysis

In the case, Mr. W entered into a contract with Ozuna to contract aportion of land for the exclusive rights to sell fireworks (Beatty &ampSamuelson, 2015). However, a long-standing city ordinance (anordinance banned the sale of fireworks) allowed the city to annex newland, which included Ozuna property. The redistricting and annexationof land resulted in the cancellation of the lease as Mr. W failed topay rent. After two years, the city reconfigured the land, whichallowed Ozuna to reenter into a contract with another person.

The contract contained two majorprovisions: the contract was voidable if the sale of fireworks becameunlawful during the period of the contract, the lessor agreed not tolease or sell part of their property to any of Mr. W’s rival duringthe lease and for ten years after the termination of the lease(Beatty &amp Samuelson, 2015). Mr. W brought a claim for breach ofcontract under the 10-year clause and argued that the 10-yearrestriction was enforceable in light of void contracts. However, therestriction is not enforceable since when a contract is voidable, itmay be set aside or enforced in its entirety. In this regards, Mr. Wcannot argue that the prohibition of fireworks made the contractvoidable as to its lease liability and not to the 10-yearrestriction. In fact, Mr. W’s argument is inconsistent withvoidable contracts since he cannot disclaim the requirements of acontract and at the same time preserve the benefits of the contract.In addition, the annexation of the land made the contract void thus,the prohibition of fireworks did not the prompt the 10-year leaserestriction. In this regards, since the contract was void, the lessordid not breach any contract thus, has the right to lease the land toMr. W’s rival.


Beatty, J., &amp Samuelson, S. (2015). Introduction to contracts. InBusiness Law and the Legal Environment (5 ed.). Boston:Cengage Learning.