What Are Legal Exceptions?
Exceptions, in a legal context, refer to a departure from, or an exception to, a general rule or principle. These exceptions, or conditions, are recognized by the law and relieve a party from a duty or liability that may otherwise arise from a violation of the general rule. Exceptions, in civil law, can be taken as the exclusive defense of a party sued. Common and essential legal exceptions include authorization, payment, lapse of time, and exceptionable cause . Legal exceptions are important as they provide a measure of predictability and certainty as to how a court may interpret the law in certain situations.
In general, exceptions may apply to:
- A breach of contract if a condition precedent to the breach is met
- A tort, such as an intentional tort (e.g., fraud) or an unintentional tort (e.g., negligence) if another party exercised reasonable care in preventing or avoiding such breach
- An equitable remedy, such as specific performance or an injunction, if the conditions for granting an inequitable remedy are met
Examples of Common Legal Exceptions to Contractual Obligations
Although the concept of contract law is fairly straightforward, its application is anything but. There are quite a number of notable exceptions to its rules and these exceptions continue to play big roles in the lives of numerous individuals. While there are many kinds of exceptions to the enforcement of contracts, the most common ones tend to revolve around the doctrines of Duress, Mistake and Misrepresentation.
Duress refers to when one party to a contract uses improper threats to induce another to enter the contract. Here, duress often involves economic or physical threats. Let’s say that a couple finally finds a home but are trapped with a rather tight deadline from the bank to close on it within the next week. At the same time, one of them happens to be held at gunpoint and under gun threat, the thief demands that the person sign a contract agreeing to sell the couple’s current home at below market value. The above scenario when properly analyzed would amount to economic duress and that contract would amount to fraud, rendering the contract voidable.
Next we have mistake, which involves the parties having either a factually or legally incorrect or inaccurate belief about a key fact of the contract. The law does not recognize mistakes as an exception to a contract party’s performance unless there is some independent legal duty of the contract parties or one of them has a special right to ensure that the other party performs. If an individual were attacked by a live thief, he or she would have a right to defend themselves up to and including deadly force. If the attacker in the above scenario were to cause the victim to sign the contract under the fear of harm and death, the contract would be rendered voidable.
In referencing the example of the gun point escape, let’s have the home seller’s armed accomplice tell the victim that the home price would rise by 50% overnight. The seller’s accomplice knows of the buyer’s plan to make the purchase and would plan to return the next day to force the buyer(s) into going through with the deal. But let’s assume that the seller’s accomplice actually believes the significant appreciation of the market value of the home will occur overnight. Even if the principle behind the statement was not made for the purpose of fraud, the buyer and seller would still be legally bound to the contract because the mistake would not have been mutual to both parties. All this means is that the mistake had to occur in the case of each party individually forming their respective beliefs about the contract terms. When mistakes are not mutual, performance under the contract would not be excused.
Lastly the doctrine of misrepresentation is designed to give an aggrieved party the right to relief from a contractual duty if the other party made a false material assertion. For instance, let’s assume that the victim of our above example was killed during the theft. Assuming that the buyer did not know that the seller’s accomplice would force him or her to sign, the buyer would not be able to bring a misrepresentation based on a false assertion of the accomplice because he or she lacked independent knowledge of the accomplice’s assertion. Rather the accomplice was simply fulfilling the role of an agent to the seller and that relationship would not be established for the buyer’s benefit. In short, the accomplice made no direct or indirect representations to fulfill the contractual obligation of his accomplice role as an agent.
Legal Exceptions In Criminal Law Statues
In criminal law, exceptions are circumstances or defenses that absolve an accused of responsibility for a crime. As is the nature of law, however, it’s crucial to remember that exceptions are not strictly absolute. Case law and court decisions illustrate the ways a court or judge will determine if an exception is applicable.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is one of the most common legal exceptions found in criminal cases. This exception states that if a party was reacting to avoid immediate harm to themselves or another, this could comprise a defense. Take the case of Lange v. California – 2019 U.S. LEXIS 682 (2019), for instance. In this case, Lange was driving in a manner that indicated a DUI arrest would be applicable. Upon seeing Lange driving erratically and then appearing to turn into a driveway, the police officer pulled over. Lange had already walked into the home when the police officer arrived – and the case appeared to indicate the home was Lange’s residence. As the police officer attempted a DUI arrest, Lange fled, which created an opportunity for the officer to demand he return to the home. After Lange was convicted of DUI, his attorney argued that the police officer had no right to enter the premises without first obtaining a search warrant. They appealed the DUI conviction. In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "searches inside homes without a warrant or probable cause are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — and, except in limited and well-defined circumstances, searches inside homes without a warrant or exigent circumstances are unreasonable — even when they are incident to arrest."
Insanity
Although verdicts of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity have become much more rare than in the past, they do still occur. In The State of Hawaii v. Antoine – 741 P.2d 130 (1987), for example, the accused, Antoine, was charged with kidnapping after he picked up a hitchhiker and drove her to a secluded beach area. However upon arriving at the beach Antoine revealed a knife and attempted to sexually assault her. Charges were filed when police intervened and arrested Antoine. The trial court instructed a jury to judge Antoine according to an M.N. test devised in the 1800s for insanity. The jury found Antoine guilty, noting that he had not demonstrated evidence of insanity according to the M.N. test. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that the trial court’s instructions had the effect of denying the possibility of a finding of insanity, and reversed the decision.
Entrapment
Like other defenses, the bench of entrapment can be read in differing ways. In State v. Sanchez, 631 So. 2d 1098 – 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) we see one particular reading: "Entrapment requires two elements: one, that the criminal conduct was induced by law enforcement agents or their informants; and two, that the criminal intent did not originate with the accused." Sanchez. More often than not, entrapment involves a defendant being tricked, duped, or convinced to commit a criminal act that they would not have done otherwise. Once a person provides the initiation to create a criminal act or transaction, the entrapment plea will probably not stand. In the case of Coots v. State of Indiana, 741 N.E.2d 377, for example, the defendant was arrested in connection with the sale and delivery of cocaine. The Coots argues that he had no interest in selling the cocaine and that he only gave the first undercover officer the drugs in order to set him up for further investigation. In the order, the Indiana Criminal Court said ‘He [Coots] further claims that the evidence presented at trial shows that he was not entrapped into committing the offenses charged.’ ‘The issue whether a defendant has been entrapped into committing a crime is an affirmative defense rather than a negating defense. The defendant bears the burden of proof on this issue, and must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entrapped.’
Exceptions In Tort Law
Even though tort law is based on the basic principal of compensation, the law provides many exceptions to liability in order to allocate some or all of the costs and/or risks of an accident to a party other than the tortfeasor. These exceptions include Assumption of Risk and Comparative Fault.
Assumption of Risk
The Assumption of Risk doctrine operates to reduce or eliminate a tortfeasor’s liability for injuries that occur on the tortfeasor’s property. In the absence of statutes to the contrary, a landowner is not liable for injuries sustained by licensees or invitees through the negligence of the landowner if the landowner has warned the licensee or invitee or otherwise has provided them the opportunity to exercise ordinary care for their own safety.
Since the Assumption of Risk doctrine is based on the defendant’s lack of control over the actions of others, its application has been extended by some courts to alleged criminal acts committed by a licensee or invitee on a landowner’s property in order to alleviate a landowner of liability for a "criminal assault situation." However, this extension of the Assumption of Risk doctrine has been roundly criticized as it does not take into account whether a landowner has taken reasonable security measures to prevent a licensee from being the victim of a criminal assault or whose security measures were inadequate. The extension of the Assumption of Risk doctrine to criminal assault situations is an unsettled question in many jurisdictions and, therefore, tortfeasors should be guided by the local precedent.
Comparative Fault
The rule of comparative fault provides relief to a successful defendant by proportioning damages for a plaintiff’s injuries in an amount corresponding with the degree of fault attributable to the plaintiff. Most jurisdictions follow some form of the partial or modified, or proportional liability system which reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in an amount equal to the plaintiff’s negligence. Therefore, a plaintiff whose liability is equal to 100% will recover nothing, a plaintiff whose liability is 50% or less will recover for his/her injuries and damages in an amount equal to his/her proportionate liability.
Several jurisdictions employ a total recovery system or strict proportionality system which, in essence, makes a plaintiff who introduces evidence of any liability on the part of the plaintiff strictly liable to reduce the plaintiff’s recovery by an amount equal to any degree of fault attributable to the plaintiff. This system is ostensibly designed to discourage a plaintiff from joining untenable claims in order to enhance recovery.
Legal Exceptions in Times of Emergency and the Use of Emergency Powers
One notable example is the suspension of some guarantees of rights when emergency powers are invoked. Many statutes and constitutions contain provisions that allow for the suspension or limitation of certain rights, privileges, or protections due to the extraordinary circumstances that inevitably accompany a crisis. Such provisions may expressly grant the government power to act in the absence of normal statutory and constitutional procedures.
In particular, such provisions are utilized by the federal government in connection with a national emergency. For example, in 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act, Pub. L. No. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976). The Act defines "national emergency" as "any occurrence, including any due to natural disaster, act of terrorism, act of foreign or domestic terrorism, military action, military invasion, or attack, which results in substantial damage to the United States, a State, or a local government and which is so dire that normal public policy purposes of the United States Government cannot be followed . " An emergency declared by the president pursuant to the provisions of the National Emergencies Act triggers the president’s preexisting statutory authority to invoke more than 100 different statutes normally dormant but which contain specific rights-infringing procedures and remedies that vest upon such a declaration. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 221-229 (National Defense Stockpile Act); id. §§ 3121-45 (Defense Production Act of 1950). The triggering of these statutes results in a multitude of rights-infringing measures that may range from consolidating authority with one administrative agency to authorizing military force and granting sweeping powers to the president.
The courts have long been reluctant to interfere with the invocation of emergency powers, holding that Congress has delegated the authority to make the requisite factual determination to the president, a decision that the courts are not competent to second guess. The ramifications of the courts’ refusal to intervene in the context of foreign affairs and national security manifest as a standard rule: the president’s decision making with respect to the identifiers of an emergency, including its effects, are accepted on deference from the courts. This has often resulted in extreme risk to civil liberties during an emergency.
State Immunity and the Exceptions Under International Law
Legal exceptions are particularly significant in the international sphere. Just as there are legal exceptions to UTCCR, there are legal exceptions to reciprocal rights and responsibilities abroad.
Sovereign Immunity can give rise to a legal exception. Sovereign Immunity is based on a universal law, namely, that sovereign States are not subject to the courts of foreign States. It is much like legal privilege. Whenever a State is a party to litigation the general principle is, unless or until the State submits to jurisdiction, that State is entitled to claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the court. A court will not have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a foreign State unless that State has consented to submission (i.e. authority) to the court. However, the giving up of Sovereign Immunity can be expressly recognised in a treaty, or that authority can be general in nature and arise from Statute or executive act.
It is important to bear in mind that Sovereign Immunity is not available in tort in the UK, including that for personal injury, – in fact, it was only a matter of time before victimisers of sexual violence turned their attention to the UK’s lack of protection against foreign sovereigns.
The present position is as follows. If you are the convicted victim of any of the crimes (torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance) listed at section 134 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, you can seek compensation from the Secretary of State for your injuries from the British Government if the crime occurred through an act of a foreign government or its agents which are deemed to be State sponsored. The purpose of this provision is to enable victim[s] of gross human rights violations by a foreign State to take civil action for compensation in the UK, where the crimes occurred. This works in two ways, firstly, the claimant will be enabled to sue the perpetrator in the UK, and secondly, the Home Secretary will be able to make an ex-gratia payment of up to £10,000 in exceptional circumstances.
The Foreign Commonwealth Office helps victims with applications for compensation to the UK Government. The requirements of going to court will be costly, protracted and the chances of success almost non-existent.
Conclusion: Important Considerations for Legal Exceptions
Whether they are articulated in the law or based on judicial interpretations, legal exceptions create openings for arguments about how the law should be applied. Simply noting the existence of a legal exception is not enough. To understand legal exceptions requires knowing what has to be included and what can be left out. Even when the main rule is familiar, the issues surrounding it may be less so . In developing exception analyses, practitioners need to consider not only how the law has been applied in the past, but the arguments that might be made about how such matters might be addressed differently in the future. Given the persistently changing nature of the law, knowing the arguments concerning application of legal exceptions potentially could influence how application may be sought in any particular matter. As a consequence, a better understanding of legal exceptions may provide additional opportunities to be effective.
