Legal Definitions - turpis causa

Turpis Causa

Turpis causa is a Latin legal term that translates to "immoral consideration" or "dishonorable cause." In contract law, it refers to a situation where the underlying purpose or reason for an agreement is illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy. When a contract is founded on turpis causa, it means that the very basis of the agreement involves an act or objective that the law deems unacceptable.

Courts will generally refuse to enforce contracts that are based on turpis causa. This principle ensures that the legal system does not lend its support to agreements that promote illegal activities, unethical conduct, or actions that harm society.

Here are some examples illustrating turpis causa:

• Example 1: Contract for Illegal Services
  Imagine two individuals, Alex and Ben, enter into a written agreement. Alex promises to pay Ben a significant sum of money if Ben successfully hacks into a rival company's computer system to steal confidential trade secrets. If Ben performs the hacking but Alex refuses to pay, Ben cannot sue Alex to enforce the payment. The entire agreement is founded on turpis causa because its purpose is to commit a cybercrime, which is illegal. A court would not uphold such a contract.
• Example 2: Agreement to Bribe an Official
  Consider a scenario where a construction company, "BuildFast Inc.," makes a deal with a city planning official, Carla. BuildFast Inc. agrees to pay Carla a large "consulting fee" in exchange for her ensuring that their building permit application is fast-tracked and approved without proper review. This agreement, even if formally documented, is based on turpis causa. It involves bribery and corruption, which are illegal and unethical. If Carla fails to deliver on her promise, BuildFast Inc. cannot legally compel her to return the "fee" or fulfill her end of the bargain, as the contract's foundation is illicit.
• Example 3: Lease for an Illegal Operation
  Suppose a property owner, Sarah, leases a commercial space to a tenant, David. Both Sarah and David are fully aware and agree that the space will be used exclusively for an illegal underground casino. David pays the first month's rent but then defaults on subsequent payments. Sarah attempts to sue David for the unpaid rent and to evict him. However, because the lease agreement was entered into with the express understanding and intent that the property would be used for an illegal gambling operation, the contract is tainted by turpis causa. A court would likely refuse to enforce the lease terms for Sarah, as it would be indirectly supporting an illegal enterprise.