Skip to main content
· 1/3/1916

Kuhn v. Buhl

Citations

  • 251 Pa. 348
  • 96 A. 977
  • 1916 Pa. LEXIS 473

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Bids for public franchises — Withdrawal of bids— Contract for withdrawal — Illegality—Evidence—Written contracts —Illegal consideration.</p> <p>1. All agreements for pecuniary considerations to control the business operations of the government are void as against public policy, without reference to the question whether improper means are attempted or used in their execution; such transactions are condemned not so much for the harm done in any particular instance, as because of their general evil public tendency.</p> <p>2. Where any public right, franchise, contract or privilege is to be disposed of by government officials or agents, whether by a public letting, or awarding upon bids, or by the exercise of official discretion without public bids, public policy forbids that one competing applicant, candidate or bidder should contract for the ex-tinguishment of another’s competition, and such contracts, if made, are void.</p> <p>3. Where a written contract is attacked upon the ground that it is offensive to law and violative of public policy, the substance, not the form of the agreement, is looked at; the court will not confine its attention to the mere words in which it is expressed, but evidence aliunde the contract is admissible to prove the illegality of the consideration.</p> <p>4. Where the consideration of a contract is indivisible and a part is illegal, it falls as a whole.</p> <p>5. Under the Acts of Congress of August 18, 1894, c. 301, Sec. 4, 28 U. S. Stat. 372, 422, (2 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1935, Sec. 4685), June 11, 1896, c. 420, 29 U. S. Stat. 413, 434, (2 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1937, Sec. 4686), and March 3, 1901, c. 853, Sec. 3, 31 U. S. Stat. 1133, 1188, (2 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1937, Sec. 4687), relating to the reclamation of desert lands owned by the United States in various states, the state wherein such lands were located, and which accepted the provisions of said acts, were given a measure of control over the reclamation and disposition of such

Judges: Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.