Legal Definitions - quoad excessum

Quoad excessum is a Latin phrase meaning "with regard to the excess." It describes a legal principle where an action, agreement, or provision is considered valid or enforceable only up to a certain reasonable or permissible limit. Any portion that exceeds this limit is deemed invalid, revocable, or subject to modification. Essentially, the excessive part is disregarded or nullified, while the non-excessive part remains legally binding or effective.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Employment Contract with an Overly Broad Non-Compete Clause: Imagine an employment agreement that includes a non-compete clause preventing a former employee from working for any competitor anywhere in the world for ten years after leaving the company. Such a broad restriction is often considered unreasonable and unenforceable in its entirety.

  A court applying the principle of quoad excessum might not strike down the entire non-compete clause. Instead, it could modify the clause to a reasonable scope, for instance, limiting it to a specific geographic region (e.g., within 50 miles of the former workplace) and a shorter duration (e.g., one or two years). The court would enforce the non-compete quoad excessum, meaning it would uphold the reasonable part and invalidate only the excessive, unenforceable portions.

• Excessive Punitive Damages Award: In a civil lawsuit, a jury might award a plaintiff a very large sum in punitive damages, intended to punish the defendant for egregious conduct. However, if the amount awarded is so disproportionately high that it violates constitutional limits on excessive fines, it could be challenged.

  A higher court or judge might review the award and reduce it quoad excessum. This means the court would not eliminate the punitive damages entirely but would reduce the amount to a constitutionally permissible level, ensuring the plaintiff still receives a significant award while removing the part deemed excessive.

• Gift Made by an Insolvent Debtor: Consider a situation where an individual, knowing they have substantial debts, gives away a significant portion of their assets as a gift to a family member. If this gift leaves the individual with insufficient funds to pay their creditors, the creditors might challenge the transfer.

  A court could rule that the gift is valid quoad excessum. This means the gift is valid to the extent that it did not prejudice the creditors (i.e., the portion of assets that would have remained even after the gift, sufficient to cover debts). However, the portion of the gift that rendered the individual insolvent and prevented creditors from being paid could be clawed back or invalidated, allowing creditors to recover their due.