gistfile1.txt

> Is a contract requiring one party to lie to others enforceable? Specifically, would an
> NDA that required the person under it to affirmatively say "I am not subject to an
> NDA" be enforceable?

In general, a contract that requires one party to engage in illegal activities or fraud
would not be enforceable in court. Contracts are invalid if their purpose is to achieve
an illegal end.

Regarding an NDA that requires the signer to lie and say they are not under an NDA,
there are a few key considerations:

    1. Misrepresentation and fraud: Requiring someone to make false statements, such as
    denying the existence of the NDA, could be considered fraudulent misrepresentation.
    Contracts that involve fraud or misrepresentation are typically unenforceable.

    2. Public policy: Courts may refuse to enforce contracts that violate public policy.
    Compelling someone to lie could be seen as contrary to public policy and the
    principles of honesty and integrity.

    3. Unconscionability: If the terms of the NDA are deemed to be extremely unfair,
    oppressive, or one-sided, a court might find the agreement "unconscionable" and
    refuse to enforce it.

    4. Context and intent: The specific circumstances and intentions behind the NDA's
    unusual requirement would likely be scrutinized by a court to determine its validity
    and enforceability.

In summary, while the enforceability of such an NDA would depend on the specific
jurisdiction and the exact terms of the agreement, it is likely that a court would be
reluctant to enforce a contract that obligates one party to make false statements, as
this could be seen as promoting fraud and violating public policy principles. However, a
definitive answer would require the assessment of the specific case by a legal
professional.

> So (assuming the lie isn't illegal/fraudulent) there's no specific principle that
> would make such a contract unenforceable, just the general chance it could be thrown
> out on grounds of public policy or unconscionability?

You're correct that there isn't a specific legal principle that would automatically
invalidate a contract solely because it requires one party to lie, assuming the lie
itself isn't illegal or fraudulent. The main issues would be the general principles of
public policy and unconscionability, as you mentioned.

    1. Public Policy: Courts have the discretion to refuse to enforce contracts that
    they deem to be contrary to public policy. Requiring someone to lie could
    potentially be seen as undermining principles of honesty and integrity, which are
    important public policy considerations. However, the specific lie and its
    consequences would need to be evaluated to determine if it truly violates public
    policy in a significant way.

    2. Unconscionability: If the terms of the contract are exceedingly unfair or
    one-sided, a court may find it unconscionable and refuse to enforce it. Requiring
    one party to lie could be a factor in determining unconscionability, especially if
    the lie is particularly egregious or if the party has little bargaining power. But
    again, the specific circumstances would need to be assessed.

Ultimately, the enforceability of such a contract would depend on the lie's nature, its
potential consequences, the parties' relative bargaining power, and the jurisdiction's
specific laws and precedents. It's a complex issue that would require a detailed
analysis of the particular case. While there's a chance such a contract could be
enforceable if the lie is relatively minor and doesn't cause significant harm, the risk
of it being found unenforceable on public policy or unconscionability grounds is
substantial.