Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd (Randall, third party): CA 1961

The court considered the effect of illegality on a contract. Devlin LJ said: ‘The effect of illegality on a contract may be threefold. If at the time of making the contract there is an intent to perform it in an unlawful way, the contract, although it remains alive, is enforceable at the suit of the party having that intent; if the intent is held in common, it is not enforceable at all. Another effect of illegality is to prevent a plaintiff from recovering under a contract if in order to prove his rights under it he has to rely on his own illegal act; he may not do that even though he can show that at the time of making the contract he had no intent to break the law and that at the time of performance he did not know that what he was doing was illegal. The third effect of illegality is to avoid the contract ab initio, and that arises if the making of the contract is expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute or is otherwise contrary to public policy.’

Devlin LJ
[1961] 1 All ER 417, [1961] 1 QB 374
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRoyal Boskalis Westminster NV and others v Mountain and others CA 28-Feb-1997
Effect of illegality on a contract.
Held: Reversed . .
CitedSoleimany v Soleimany CA 4-Mar-1998
The parties were Iranian Jews, father and son. The son arranged to export carpets from Iran in contravention of Iranian law. The father and son fell into dispute about their contracts and arranged for the issues to be resolved by the Beth Din . .
CitedSoutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
Held: Setting out and applying the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.219307