A woman forged her husband's signature on dozens of cheques. In an attempt to protect her from prosecution, the husband signed a letter prepared by the Bank agreeing to assume all liability for the forged cheques. What would the Court find in relation to this agreement?

A) As an agreement to stifle a criminal prosecution, it was an illegal contract and therefore void.
B) The agreement was unenforceable because the Bank lacked capacity to enter into such an agreement.
C) The agreement was unenforceable because the husband was under duress at the time he signed it.
D) While the Bank acted improperly, "freedom to contract" establishes that the agreement must be enforced.
E) Because the husband acted improperly, the agreement was voidable by the Bank on the basis of illegality.

Question

Nicole Lopez · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : A, Explanation :  An agreement to stifle a criminal prosecution, such as one involving forgery, is considered an illegal contract and is therefore void. This is because it goes against public policy to allow parties to contract out of criminal liability.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions