The Confused Nature Of Distinguishing Between Void & Voidable Contracts

In a recent issue of the Campbell Law Review, author Jesse A. Schaeffer writes:

• Contract law has a problem. With predictable recurrence, court opinions, statutes, scholarly literature, and contract draftsmen use the words "void," "voidable," and "unenforceable" - as well as dozens of other terms of the same ilk - to describe flawed contracts. Yet the meaning of these declarations is persistently and maddeningly slippery. In the rare case where the precise meanings of these words are pressed into service in the courtroom, litigants are often surprised to find the court announce that a transaction formerly (and unequivocally) declared to be void is, in fact, merely voidable or unenforceable. The scope of the problem is as widespread as it is trifled; though the distinction between void and voidable is sometimes the most important issue in contract disputes, very little serious, scholarly attention has been paid to the nature of the distinction.
• Perhaps this dearth of attention can be explained by the fact that many people view the source of the problem as simply one of form. In this view, the confusion is merely a symptom of linguistic laziness. If the legal profession was to more precisely employ the proper terminology, the "problem" would fade away. For others, however, the problem springs from the nature and function of language itself. In this view, words are imperfect symbols that are often insufficient to fully communicate the underlying concepts.

For more, see Beyond a Definition: Understanding the Nature of Void and Voidable Contracts (33 Campbell L. Rev. 193, Fall, 2010).

Thanks to Deontos for the link to the article. DeedVoidVoidable