Courts should consult legislative policy signals even outside the jurisdiction to void contracts

Evidence

‘This approach, if utilized by the courty, lends added significance to non-penal statutes which contain indications of what are ‘public policies.’ It also makes available in the decision of cases the statutes of st!-tes other than the state of jurisdiction. Where they employ this method of attack, the courts will refuse to enforce a contract not ‘because it is illegal’ or because the legislature ‘intended that a person making such a contract should be punished,’ but because they have satisfied themselves that, in the light of what has been indicated to them by legislative bodies, at home or abroad, the contract is against public policy. Criminality is not a requisite element; punishment (in the sense of retribution for undesirable conduct) is not a primary purpose. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1400

Categorization

• XREF: Reinforces the polyad thread that legislative judgments are evidence of public policy to be used analogically across state lines. — connects to: Statutes serve courts as analogies and points of departure, not controlling rules — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1398; Courts should attribute purpose to statutes and interpret words to serve it — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3499; Courts should rarely infer legislators intended to freeze a decision’s rule — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3351 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Courts should rarely infer legislators intended to freeze a decision’s rule #complicates (0.80) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3351
• Courts should attribute purpose to statutes and interpret words to serve it #corroborates (0.78) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3499