Defenses to Breach of Contract: Legally Denying Claims
In the realm of business and transactions, the formation of contractual agreements between two parties is a common occurrence, wherein each party commits to fulfilling its respective obligations. Unfortunately, instances of breach of contract, characterized by one party’s failure to adhere to the mutually agreed terms, are equally prevalent.
Should you or your enterprise be accused of being the “breaching party,” or if the counterpart alleges that you have violated the contract terms, it becomes crucial to understand various defenses to breach of contract claims. These defenses can provide vital protection against potential legal actions.
Contract Defense Definition
In legal terms, “contract defenses” can be defined as a set of arguments or strategies used to challenge the validity or enforceability of a contract claim. These defenses are commonly used in legal disputes with the aim of either averting the execution of a contract or reducing the liabilities of one of the involved parties. Essentially, they serve as rationales to justify or excuse a breach of the contractual agreement.
Moreover, breach of contract defenses are also referred to as “affirmative defenses.” This means that the party raising the defense has the burden of proving the defense. An affirmative defense, within the legal context, does not dispute the core allegations or facts of the case (such as the occurrence of a contract breach). Rather, it introduces mitigating facts or circumstances that, if proven, can nullify the legal impact of the breach claim. This approach acknowledges the primary events but offers additional context or justification that may legally invalidate the claim or reduce the liability of the defending party.
Common Defenses to Breach of Contract
When one party files a civil lawsuit against the other party for breaching the contract agreement, the party accused of the breach has the right to raise various defenses. The most commonly employed defenses to counter the enforcement of a contract or to mitigate liability for damages include:
1.Lack of Capacity
A party may contend that they lacked the requisite legal capacity to enter into a contractual agreement at the time it was formed. Individuals typically recognized as lacking this capacity include minors (persons under the age of 18), individuals with mental disabilities, or those who were under the influence of substances, thereby impairing their judgment or understanding of the contract’s implications.
This argument hinges on the premise that the party in question did not possess the necessary understanding or ability to make an informed and voluntary agreement, thus rendering the contract potentially void or voidable.
2.Statute of Frauds
Arguing that the contract is unenforceable because it does not comply with the specific requirements of the Statute of Frauds, such as being in writing for certain types of agreements.
This defense is applicable when a party asserts that they were deceived about a crucial term of the contract. The essence of this argument is that the party’s consent to the contract was not genuinely informed or voluntary because they were misled about key aspects of the agreement.
Claiming that the contract was signed under coercion, threats, or undue pressure, thereby making it voidable. This situation typically occurs when an individual perceives a lack of viable alternatives, thus feeling compelled to enter the agreement.
In instances of alleged breach, the defending party may assert that their participation in the contract was not a product of free will but rather a result of coercion. This assertion, if substantiated, can lead to the conclusion that the contract was fundamentally flawed from its inception, rendering it null and void.
It is a claim that one party exerted such excessive influence over the other that the latter was unable to make an independent and free decision regarding the contract. This defense is particularly relevant in scenarios where there exists a special or fiduciary relationship between the parties, such as between a guardian and a ward, a trustee and a beneficiary, or a doctor and a patient.
In these relationships, there’s an inherent expectation of trust and confidence, and undue influence is argued when it is believed that this trust has been exploited to the advantage of one party. The essence of this defense is that the influenced party’s will was overpowered by the undue influence of the other, making the agreement fundamentally unfair and potentially voidable.
Illegality in contract law refers to a situation where a contract becomes unenforceable because its subject matter, purpose, or terms violate legal statutes or public policy. For instance, a contract that facilitates activities like prostitution contravenes tax regulations or mandates the destruction of records is inherently void due to its illegal nature.
Unconscionability asserts a contract is so excessively one-sided or unfair that it is morally or ethically offensive to the extent that it “shocks the conscience.” This defense hinges on the principle that the terms of the agreement are so unjust or overwhelmingly in favor of one party over the other that enforcing the contract would be contrary to fundamental notions of fairness and justice.
This argument can be based on either procedural unconscionability, which involves unfairness in the process of contract formation (such as deceit, high-pressure sales tactics, or significant power imbalances), or substantive unconscionability, which relates to the actual terms of the contract being extremely unjust or one-sided.
7.Non-fulfillment of a Condition Precedent
A party can argue that a specific, necessary condition that was required for the contract to become effective was not met. A condition precedent is a term in a contract that stipulates a certain event or action must occur before the contract or its provisions become binding on the parties.
This defense is based on the premise that since the condition precedent was not satisfied, the obligations stipulated in the contract did not come into effect. Essentially, it is argued that the contract’s obligations were contingent upon this unfulfilled condition, and therefore, the contract cannot be enforced as intended.
This defense asserts that both parties shared a fundamental misunderstanding about a critical aspect of the contract. This defense is centered on the premise that there was a mutual error regarding a significant fact or element upon which the contract was based.
In invoking this defense, it is argued that this shared mistake impacted the foundation of the agreement, making the terms and conditions of the contract not aligned with the intentions of either party. The essence of this argument is that since both parties were under the same incorrect assumption about a key component of the contract, the agreement may be considered void or voidable, as it did not accurately reflect the mutual consent or agreement of the parties involved.
These defenses to breach of contract are essential in contract law as they ensure that contracts are fair, entered into voluntarily, and in compliance with legal and ethical standards. Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) can be of assistance in handling breaches of contract. THAC services range from offering model dispute resolution clauses that address breaches of contract to providing a forum for arbitrating or mediating remedies for a breach.
THAC: International Arbitration and Expert Mediation Services
As an international arbitration institution, THAC specializes in providing effective and impartial dispute resolution services. Our team of seasoned arbitrators and mediators brings a wealth of experience to the table, ensuring that your business disputes are handled with the utmost expertise and professionalism.
If you have questions about our arbitration services or any other legal services, please get in touch with us at:
Email: [email protected]
Call: +66 (0)2018 1615
THAC is looking forward to helping you.