Agreements that infringe on marital obligations are contrary to public policy and are non-agreeable. «public policy»: a vague and unsatisfactory notion that must lead to uncertainty and error in its application to the rights decision; it is capable of being understood in different senses; it can and does mean «political expediency» or what is best for the common good of the Community; and in this sense, there may be any variety of opinions, depending on the education, habits, talents and inclinations of any person who must decide whether an action is contrary to public order or not. Admitting it as a reason for a judicial decision would lead to greater uncertainty and confusion. It is the province of the statesman, not the lawyer, to discuss and determine to the legislature what is best for the common good, and to guarantee it by appropriate decrees. It is the province of the judge to declare only the law; written from the statutes; the unwritten or universal right of the decisions of our predecessors and our existing courts, the authority recognized by the authors of texts and the principles that must be clearly established for reasonable reasons and only conclusions; Do not speculate on what it considers best, for the benefit of the Community. Some of these decisions may be based on the prevailing and just views of the common good; z.B the illegality of alliances to restrict marriage or trade. They are part of the recognized law, and that is why we are connected to it, but it does not allow us to define everything we think for the common good as a law and to prohibit everything we think differently. If someone trades with enemies of the state, it will always be considered contrary to public order. Contracts that involve the trade of enemies are illegal and are not enforced by the court.
For minor children, their father is the legal guardian and, in his absence, their mother will be the legal guardian. A father is entitled by law to custody of his minor child and therefore cannot enter into an agreement inconsistent with his obligations under that custody. When such an agreement is reached, it is non-agreeable because it is contrary to public policy. In most cases, the courts will assist someone who has been wronged by a breach of contract if they can prove that an offence has actually occurred. An exception to this rule is when the contract is contrary to public policy. If the court finds that a contract has violated a law or directive, it will not assist the contracting parties. When a treaty promotes an immoral act, such as the commission of a crime. B, it is considered to be contrary to public order and not respected. As a general rule, contracts contrary to public policy are non-applicable and not applicable. Thus, a court would dismiss an action in the execution of an easement contract brought.
Other cases are less obvious. For example, if two parties decide to settle their disputes in a written agreement, a provision that one party does not notify the other party`s violations of the enforcement services is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. While it is not illegal to keep another person`s crime to oneself and not to report it, a promise not to do so runs counter to Arizona`s public policies, which encourage citizens to report crimes and the freedom to do so. In simple terms, pubic policy refers to the policy of the government for the good of society, It can also be said that if an agreement against a developed interest of society or morals of the time, it can be said that against public order and the agreement will be considered invalid. It was held that an agreement could not be applied if it was contrary to the public interest [ii] or contrary to general legal policy.