Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WebbityWebbs t1_irjdq6q wrote

Reply to comment by plugubius in Pot twist: Cannabis firm refuses federal judge's ruling because its business isn't legal under federal law by Doc_Dante

A contract to engage in an illegal act is not valid.

17

plugubius t1_irjeguu wrote

Whether a contract is valid is a matter of state law. Here, the relevant state law says the contract is valid.

Federal law can preempt state law, but a thing's being illegal under federal law does not by itself preempt state law on contract validity. We would need to examine the federal law being referred to in order to see if it had any effect on state law about leases. I can tell you that prohibiting the sale of cannabis is not enough to touch state law on leases, which is why I asked what federal law the poster was referring to.

−6

r33k3r t1_irjja6q wrote

Is someone suggesting that state law on leases would be preempted, rather than that the federal court simply wouldn't be the venue to deal with state contract law matters, and that this contract can't be adjudicated under federal contract law because it's an illegal contract under federal law?

5

plugubius t1_irjjwkq wrote

My assumption is that was the argument, because federal courts are certainly the right place to hear state-law disputes between citizens of different states.

2

r33k3r t1_irjkdme wrote

I dunno. I think leases of real property are almost always governed by the laws of the state where the property is located, not whatever other state the parties happen to reside in.

2

plugubius t1_irjksit wrote

That is a question of choice of law, not federal jurisdiction. Illinois law will usually apply to Illinois properties, but that doesn't mean a New York federal court can't apply Illinois law.

2