Is violating a valid contract illegal?

[claygreenberg]

Chown33,

There is a difference. Foremost is the distinction between the consequences of being found liable for a civil wrong and being found guilty of an illegal act. The consequence of having committed a civil wrong is usually NOT punishment (unless the wrong is particularly malicious, and even in that case, the punishment is just a greater monetary award). It is to shift the loss suffered by the opposing party. When one is guilty of an illegal act, however, the remedy is typically a punishment (and sometimes also restitution).

Having read the entire thread, the only question I have is this:

What difference does it make?
​

Is there some technical point of law that hinges on the precise definition of the word "illegal", as there is for words like "felony" or "tort" or "breach of contract"? Is there a difference in punishment between being adjudged guilty of an unadorned "in breach of contract" vs. being "illegally in breach of contract"?

Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, I don't see how the presence or absence of the word "illegal" (or "legal", in the sense of "the opposite of illegal") makes any difference whatsoever.

In my experience, breaches of contract are called breaches of contract, being one aspect of a larger class of civil wrongs called torts. Commission of a misdemeanor or a felony is called a misdemeanor or a felony, not "illegal" except informally. Then there are transgressions like parking tickets, and I'm not even sure what those are called, since not every traffic violation is necessarily a misdemeanor or a felony.

This whole thing seems to me like a distinction without a difference. There may be some as-yet unexplained purpose to the argument from a philosophical viewpoint, but I see no purpose at all when it comes to the law or any punitive measures.

If there is a difference to this distinction, I'd like to know what it is.

It reminds me of the distinction between "unity" and "one" in mathematics. There is none; the terms are interchangeable. The only difference is convention: "unity" is used in some conventions, and "one" is used in others. The meaning is identical. (And someone will probably disagree with me on that, convinced of my benighted ignorance.)

 

[LawyerPhil]

Long time lurker, this thread made me register.

I'm a licensed and practicing attorney in the southeastern United States. This isn't legal advice, just an overview of how this works in my jurisdiction.

As a general rule, the term "illegal" means contrary to a specific, written law. In regard to Contract law, my State lacks our own codified Contract law and therefore we revert back to the Common Law, that nebulous collection of written and unwritten laws handed down to us by our British cousins. Fortunately, the common law of contracts has more or less been united by the Uniform Commercial Code, and THAT has been adopted by my State.

So, generally speaking, is breaching a written contract "illegal"? Yeah, probably. Certainly in States that have adopted the UCC.

However, virtually everyone in the legal field (including me) uses the term "illegal" to mean a violation of a criminal law. So in common usage, no we would not say breaching a contract is illegal.

Last point: there are instances where a breach of contract can BECOME a criminal act. My State has a crime called False Pretenses, in which the breaching party intended to defraud the other party (I.e., from the beginning you never intend to follow through with the contract). In this case, you can both sue for breach of contract and contact the DA and file criminal charges.