Case Brief: Hiett V. Lake Barcroft Community Association

Off Limits Contractual Agreements

Contract laws involving transactions considered illegal are quite nettlesome when it comes to contractual enforcement and restitution. While the private contractual law guides relationships, workplace agreements, and day-to-day interactions among people, the criminal law comes in when an agreement violates criminal law (Rendleman, 2024). Tension between criminal law and private contract law arises when the agreement may unjustly enrich one of the parties to the contract if courts decide not to intervene in the matter (Rendleman, 2024): Case Brief: Hiett V. Lake Barcroft Community Association.

I strongly believe that the thinking that a contract between a plaintiff and a defendant is illegal or immoral sounds ill when it comes from the mouth of the defendant. Apart from policy considerations, I do not believe that a court should decide that a contract borders on illegal activity and that it should not be enforced. If courts rule that a contract is off limits, they will benefit a party who grounds their course of action on an illegality or an immoral act.

For instance, if a nightclub owner and a commercial sex worker reach a signed agreement for the latter to provide services at a nightclub, it is an illegal agreement. However, since a contract is signed before the sex worker provides their services, the transaction is valid under private contract law. Subsequently, if the night club owner fails to fulfill their end of the bargain by not paying as agreed in a signed contract, they will have violated the private contract law.

In a court of law, if judges declare that the matter is off limits and void the contract, the nightclub owner will be enriched at the expense of the commercial sex worker, who will get nothing at all. Therefore, I strongly hold that courts should not void any contract unless it contravenes public policy.

Exculpatory Agreements

According to Anzivino (2019), the basis for upholding an exculpatory agreement is the basic right of the parties to a contract. From the outset, upholding exculpatory agreement is a matter of public policy as captured in the United States Constitution. The US Constitution strongly favors the freedom of private contracts as long as the requirements of the contracts are explicitly expressed in the contract agreement. To that end, judges have no jurisdiction to decline the implementation of exculpatory agreements just because they believe it immoral.

A rationale for this reasoning is that courts should avoid interfering with the rights of two individuals who reach an agreement as long as they freely and knowingly enter the agreement. If courts interfere, then they will be denying two individuals the opportunity to meet their needs (Anzivino, 2019). Regarding triathlon participants in the Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association case, the exculpatory agreement should be fully implemented because it was clearly stated in the contract form, with the Barcroft Community Association stating that it will not accept liability for any injuries that could occur.

Opinion on Court Decision

In a preliminary ruling in the Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association case, the trial court ruled that in the absence of fraud, illiteracy, denial of opportunity to read the form, duress, or misinterpretation, the defendants were released from any negligence (Justia, n.d.). I agree with this position because the agreement clearly states that the organizers will not be responsible for any injuries that may result from participating in the triathlon event. Since all participants, including Hiett, were presented with the participation form and signed it, he cannot later claim he was not aware of the dangers.

The organizers were not responsible for negligence, and if anything, it was incumbent upon the participants to conduct independent research and determine the dangers that they were likely to face if they participated in the event. The only circumstance under which the negligence argument would hold is if it were part of an employment contract (Justia, n.d.). A contract involving a long-term relationship, like the employment agreement, qualifies as a public policy matter, placing increased responsibility on the employer not to be negligent.

On the contrary, the Lake Barcroft Community Association did not own the lake; hence, no responsibility to ensure safety measures at the lake. It should have been Hiett’s responsibility to verify the safety measures before participating.

Jurisdiction over Contract Enforcement

The contract clause of the US Constitution grants private individuals authority over the contracts they enter. Among others, the clause emphasizes that state governments, local governments should not make laws that violate the constitutional requirements of contractual law. Besides, the principle of separation of powers avers that courts should not seem to take the responsibility of making laws that interfere with the freedom of private contracts. To that end, unless there are disagreements, the individual parties to a contract have the responsibility of enforcing contracts.

Although contracts are legally binding, conflicts are bound to occur, and that is where the civil government should intervene. A civil government will help in providing legal remedies in case of breaches through the judicial system (Pargendler, 2018). Also, the state can come in to ensure uniform application of standards, especially if parties to a contract come from different states that have non-uniform standards (Pargendler, 2018). As long as the contract law is not breached, the parties to a contract may engage other parties, such as family members and the church.

Christian Worldview

From a Biblical perspective, a number of verses emphasize the need to respect contractual agreements even when it is no longer convenient. For instance, Numbers 30:2 says, “When a man vows a vow to Jehovah, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he will not break his word. He will do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Walker, 2015). This verse stresses the need to take personal responsibility to keep one’s commitments.

After an individual commits to a contractual agreement, one should not shift goal posts when it is no longer convenient. Besides, Psalm 15:4 notes, “…he that swears to his own hurt and changes not” (Walker, 2015). The verse commends parties who keep their side of the bargain even when it is inconvenient. Since Hiett read and signed the contract form, including the exculpatory agreement, he should not have sued the triathlon organizers for getting injured.

References

Anzivino, R. (2019). The exculpatory contract and public policy. Marquette Law Review, 102(3). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5397&context=mulr

Justia. (n.d.). Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Ass’n. Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1992/911395-1.html

Pargendler, M. (2018). The role of the state in contract law: The common-civil law divide. Yale Journal of International Law, 43(1), 143–189. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2848886

Rendleman, D. (2024). Illegal contracts and agreements: A new standard for prostitution and marijuana agreements. Washington and Lee Law Review, 81(2), 711. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol81/iss2/6

Walker, G. A. (2015). Holy Bible: Modern Literal Version Old Testament (2015 Alpha Version). https://dir.sermon-online.com/english/Bible/The_Old_Testament_Modern_Literal_Version_20151029.pdf

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Case Brief: Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association Assignment Instructions

Overview

A case brief is a dissection of a legal opinion, containing a written summary of the basic components of that decision. “Briefing” a case (opinion) helps the student understand the rule of law as interpreted by that particular court.

Instructions

Each student will carefully read a legal opinion (Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association). Upon reading said case, each student will complete a case brief following the instructions outlined below.

After reading and analyzing the case, address the following issues:

1. Do you believe that certain topics should be ‘off limits’ when it comes to the subject matter of contracts? For example, should the Courts uphold contracts dealing with illegal issues (e.g. drugs, prostitution, etc.)?
2. Should triathlon participants be expected to honor their promise with respect to exculpatory clauses in contracts? In other words, does one’s promise ‘not to sue’ matter, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling?
3. Did you agree or disagree with the Court’s rationale in deciding the case?
4. Which authority should have jurisdiction (power/authority) over the issue of contracts and enforcement among private parties? Civil government, Church, Family, Self?
5. Reflect on the case in light of the truths outlined in the Christian worldview. Support your position using various Christian sources (e.g. Scripture, Catechisms, historic Christian Creeds, etc.).
   

   Case Brief: Hiett V. Lake Barcroft Community Association

Your paper must be completed based on the following criteria:

• 3 full pages;
• 2 scholarly citations;
• 1-inch margins;
• Double-spaced;
• 12-point, Times New Roman font;

Put a title on the top line of the first page, and include your name. No other identifying information is needed. Do not include a separate cover page. Citations must be in APA format and included on a separate reference page.

Review Case Brief Grading Rubric for specific point totals.

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Link:

• https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1992/911395-1.html