No, Commonwealth does not have to pay him. The court decided that its job is not to help people collect money they earned through crime. Even though McConnell's contract with Commonwealth looked fine on paper, the way he actually performed the contract was based on bribery. The court will not be a 'paymaster for crime' and won't help someone who did something so wrong get rewarded for it.

Yes, Commonwealth should still have to pay him. The contract between them was totally legal. The bribery was a separate, bad act between McConnell and a third person. Commonwealth got exactly what it paid for—the movie rights—and is now just using McConnell's bad behavior as an excuse to get out of paying the rest of the money. This isn't fair and creates a confusing new rule.

I agree. This decision will just encourage companies to break their promises whenever they find out the other person did something wrong in a separate deal. It rewards the person who breaks the contract.

Yes, they can't get the money because they did something really bad, like bribery, to make the deal happen. This is against the rules of fair play.

No, they should still get the money because the original deal was okay. The bad stuff they did wasn't part of the deal.

No, stopping them from getting the money doesn't really help anyone and might make things worse by encouraging more bad behavior.

No, they can't get the money because they did something really bad, like bribery, to make the deal happen. This is against the rules of fair play.

Yes, they should still get the money because the original deal was okay. The bad stuff they did wasn't part of the deal.

Yes, stopping them from getting the money doesn't really help anyone and might make things worse by encouraging more bad behavior.

Yes. A party is barred from recovering payment under an otherwise lawful contract if its performance was accomplished through a central and gravely illegal act like bribery. Public policy dictates that courts should not be used to enforce claims that are the fruits of corruption. The court's role is not to serve as a 'paymaster of the wages of crime.' While the contract between McConnell and Commonwealth was not illegal in itself, McConnell's performance was achieved through commercial bribery, a crime. Allowing him to collect commissions would permit him to profit from his own wrong. This rule applies when the illegality is not merely incidental but is a central or dominant part of the plaintiff's performance, as the bribery was here.

No. A plaintiff's illegal acts committed during the performance of a valid agreement should not prevent recovery. The contract sued upon is perfectly legal and did not contemplate any illegal acts. Commonwealth received the full benefit of McConnell's performance and now seeks to avoid its own obligations by raising an independent, illegal transaction between McConnell and a third party. The majority's distinction between 'major' and 'minor' or 'direct' and 'peripheral' illegality is unworkable and not supported by precedent. The established rule is that a contract is enforceable if it was lawfully made and did not contemplate wrongdoing.

No. The majority's decision will likely encourage breaches of contract rather than restrain corruption. It allows a party like Commonwealth to receive the benefits of a contract and then use the other party's separate wrongdoing as a pretext to avoid payment, which is an unconscionable result. Public policy is not served by a rule that puts a premium on such breaches of faith. I concur with Judge Froessel.

Yes. Because the contract, while valid on its face, was performed through gravely immoral and illegal acts, specifically commercial bribery. This conduct is central to the plaintiff's performance of the contract, making it against public policy to allow recovery. The court's concern is not with the position of the defendant but with whether recovery by the plaintiff should be denied for the sake of public interests. We hold that a party will be denied recovery even on a contract valid on its face if it appears that he has resorted to gravely immoral and illegal conduct in accomplishing its performance. This application of the principle is limited to cases in which the illegal performance of a contract originally valid takes the form of commercial bribery or similar conduct and in which the illegality is central to or a dominant part of the plaintiff's whole course of conduct in performance of the contract.

No. Because the contract itself was lawful and did not contemplate illegal performance. The majority's extension of the rule to bar recovery under a legally formed contract due to illegal acts in performance is neither workable nor supported by precedent. If a contract was lawfully made and did not contemplate wrongdoing, it is enforceable. The criteria distinguishing enforceable from unenforceable contracts should not be based on 'nice' distinctions between degrees of illegality and immorality in the performance of lawful contracts. Moreover, a reversal here would be contrary to the spirit of our holding in Southwestern Shipping Corp. v. National City Bank, which stands for the proposition that a party unconnected with an illegal agreement should not be permitted to reap a windfall by pleading the illegality of that agreement, to which he was a stranger.

No. Because the decision to extend the rule to this case does not serve public interest or morals, and it potentially encourages further unethical behavior rather than curbing it. Public morals and fair dealing are likely to be advanced by limiting rather than by enlarging the rule that is being extended to the facts of this case. The effect of this decision will not be to restrain the corrupt influencing of agents, employees or servants but to encourage misappropriation of funds and breaches of faith between persons who do not stand in corrupt relationships with one another.

McConnell v. Commonwealth Pictures Corp.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot