If a contract is considered to be contrary to public policy, the contract is unenforceable. General principles are used to determine whether a contract is contrary to public policy, which is why many people find this problem very complex. When public policy issues arise, the courts must be very careful in their decisions. The defence of public order in the event of conflict can be addressed because the provisions of foreign law are harmful or very different from those of the forum. The principle of public order may, in fact, be a choice of law that refers to the law of the courts, because the remedies are important with the state in which the proceedings are initiated or because of the impact of public law on private markets. Perhaps we could add another list of public order uses. The principle can be invoked for unfairness in a particular case. Long ago, Professor Cavers argued that fairness of the outcome is too often overlooked in the area of conflict.143 Professor Rabel redirects the point so that a court, which should in no way be forced into ruin by the application of a treaty, can admit such a defence, hitherto unknown to American law. against an American treaty. 144 Public order could thus serve as a residual principle of justice to relieve the harshness of a general rule, since it applies to a given situation with significant foreign facts. Our research has not revealed any cases where public order is used in this way.
Two cases are close to the idea. In both cases, a plaintiff attempts to impose a liability that is a great surprise to the defendant. In Farmers – Merchants Natl Bank v. Anderson, 145 the accused, an Iowan, invested in a Texas business trust where investors should not be personally responsible for any of the commercial debts. According to public order deplored. 49 Professor Cavers established public order. 50 Professor Nussbaum, when he talks about whether the doctrine of public order is being used, gives us an important insight: [To]he depends on the circumstances, or more accurately, on the importance of the case`s contacts with the forum territory.51 In short, public order is an opportunity to avoid the application of a choice of law that the forum wishes to avoid. The Forum`s objection is therefore not directed against the content of foreign law, but against its own choice of law. Instead of amending or amending the so-called applicable rule, the court may, for public policy reasons, refuse the application of the right to which the rule refers. The closer the link between the forum and the facts of a particular transaction, the easier it is to expect the forum to use its own law to evaluate the case before it.
In such a view, the doctrine of public policy becomes a kind of principle of legal choice, imprecise, unexplained, ineffective, but nevertheless to fulfil a function of legal choice. It is a way of saying that, under these conditions, this forum refers to its domestic law and not to that of another State to which we would direct our normal right to vote.