Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc.
201 Cal.App.3d 832, 247 Cal.Rptr. 340 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is void as contrary to public policy if its subject matter, while not expressly illegal, is so closely connected to an illegal activity that the public interest against enforcement outweighs the interest in enforcement.
Facts:
- In 1978, Robert Bovard sold his corporation, American Horse Enterprises, Inc., to James T. Ralph.
- The corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing jewelry and drug paraphernalia.
- The drug paraphernalia consisted of "roach clips" and "bongs" which are used to smoke marijuana and tobacco.
- A court later found that the corporation was predominantly engaged in the production of drug paraphernalia, not jewelry.
- As part of the sale, Ralph executed promissory notes to Bovard.
- At the time of the sale, the possession, use, and transfer of marijuana was illegal in California, but the manufacture of drug paraphernalia was not.
- Bovard later recovered the corporate machinery through self-help.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Bovard sued James T. Ralph and American Horse Enterprises, Inc. in trial court to recover on promissory notes.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Ralph based on a purported settlement agreement.
- Ralph moved to vacate the judgment, arguing his attorney was not authorized to settle; the trial court denied the motion.
- Ralph, as appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to the intermediate Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case.
- On remand, Bovard filed a supplemental complaint in the trial court to enforce the settlement agreement.
- During the subsequent jury trial on the supplemental complaint, the trial court discovered the nature of the business, excused the jury, and considered the legality of the underlying contract.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract for the sale of a business that predominantly manufactures drug paraphernalia void as contrary to the public policy expressed in laws prohibiting marijuana use, even if the manufacture of such paraphernalia was not expressly illegal when the contract was made?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
Yes. A contract for the sale of a business that primarily manufactures drug paraphernalia is illegal and void because the consideration for the contract is contrary to the policy of express law. Although the manufacture of drug paraphernalia was not expressly illegal when the contract was formed, it is contrary to the public policy embodied in the statutes making the possession, use, and transfer of marijuana unlawful. The court applied a balancing test from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178, weighing the interest in enforcing the contract against the public policy opposing it. The court found the interest in enforcement to be tenuous, as the parties could not have justifiably expected judicial protection for a business reliant on illegal activity, and Bovard's forfeiture was mitigated by his recovery of the machinery. Conversely, the public policy against facilitating marijuana use is strong and well-established. Refusing to enforce the contract furthers this policy by deterring the manufacture of such items and serving notice that courts will not protect business interests tied to illegal acts.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that a contract can be voided for public policy reasons even if its subject is not explicitly illegal at the time of formation. The court demonstrated its willingness to look beyond the letter of the law to its underlying policy, in this case, the policy against illegal drug use. This decision establishes that courts will not enforce agreements that, while not facially criminal, have as their primary object the facilitation of illegal conduct. It impacts future contract disputes by expanding the scope of the illegality defense, warning businesses that profiting from activities closely tied to crime is a risk that the judicial system will not protect.
Unlock the full brief for Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc.