Reference Database · Vol. IV

The Void Index

Always void in Quebec. Quebec has been voiding things since 1978 under the Loi sur les loteries, les concours publicitaires et les appareils d'amusement. Quebec is not sorry. Quebec would like you to understand that it has a civil code and that the civil code addresses this.

Void in jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code with modification, which is most of them, each in a slightly different way, ensuring that no two states agree on what "merchantable" means. The UCC is a uniform code in the same sense that the United States is a united nation: technically accurate, functionally approximate.

Void everywhere. Not by statute. By convention. No legislature has found it necessary to specifically address the enforceability of what a sales representative said while guiding you toward the undercoating. The common law got there first.

Void in the European Union, where consumer protection law regards "as-is" as an aspiration rather than a legal position. The EU Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods provides minimum warranty protections that cannot be waived by contractual language, including the phrase "as-is," including the phrase in all-capital letters, including the phrase in bold, including the phrase underlined.

Void at the discretion of the cashier. The cashier's discretion is void at the discretion of the manager. The manager is on break. This is not a legal framework. It is a retail framework. The distinction, in practice, does not matter.

Void after 30 days. Also void if the rain never comes, which raises philosophical questions the issuing retailer is not equipped to address. The rain check is, at its core, a promise about a future state of inventory that neither party fully controls. The 30-day limit is how the retailer manages its exposure to this uncertainty. The weather is unmanaged.

Void in California under Business and Professions Code § 16600. Technically void or severely limited in several other states but enforced anyway through what legal scholars call "the intimidation loophole." This is not a real term. It should be.

Void in all jurisdictions. God has not retained counsel. God has not agreed to binding arbitration. The exclusion of acts of God from warranty coverage is among the most durable and least challenged provisions in commercial law. No court has been asked to rule on whether God is subject to jurisdiction. We expect this to change.

Void upon the death of the company. The lifetime in question was theirs, not yours. This was not made clear at the time of purchase. "Lifetime" in commercial contexts means the product's useful life, the company's operating life, or the duration of the model line, depending on which is shortest and which the company is currently arguing. The consumer's actual lifetime is rarely the operative definition and is described in legal practice as "the generous interpretation."

California courts have voided mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts that are found to be unconscionable. The standard for unconscionability is, itself, the subject of ongoing litigation. The arbitration clause that voids unconscionable arbitration clauses is not unconscionable. This has been tested.

If the phrase is void where prohibited, and the phrase appears in a jurisdiction where it is prohibited, the phrase voids itself. This is known as the Void Paradox. We have a section on it. The section is not void.

Void universally, with a consistency that suggests the one thing all jurisdictions agree on is that you should have read the rules. The deadline is on the entry form. The entry form was on the back of the cereal box. The cereal box is in a landfill. This is not the sponsor's problem.

Void as an apology in all jurisdictions. No statute addresses this specifically. The common law of interpersonal relations, while not codified, is settled on this point. The phrase acknowledges a feeling without accepting any causal relationship to its origin. Courts have found this useful in avoiding defamation claims. It has not proven useful in the contexts where it is typically deployed.

Void by convention at 6pt or below. Not by statute, except in pharmaceutical advertising, financial disclosures, and certain state-specific consumer protection contexts where minimum font sizes are specified. In all other cases, the prohibition is enforced by human vision. The fine print is technically readable. Nobody has read it. This is a widely documented empirical finding that has not changed the practice.