The defendant testified that its understanding of the agreement was that the applicant would only deal with the trials. The defendant and her daughter felt pressured to call on the complainant`s services because they were in a hurry to send the university`s applications. The school trustee expressed concern that the complainant would have to write the essays because the student had to certify that he had written the essay. The complainant admitted that he knew that the accused`s daughter had to certify that they wrote the essay. The parties agreed orally that the plaintiff would work on the defendant`s daughter`s collegial motions at an agreed rate of 125 $US per hour for each hour working with the defendant`s daughter personally. For all the hours the applicant worked independently in his residence, the price was $100 per hour. There was no written agreement. The agreement was that the plaintiff would come to the aid of working on the trials of the defendant`s daughter. The defendant regularly paid applicants for the services provided by him. The applicant maintains that the respondent was satisfied with the services provided. If both parties are equally guilty (pari delicto), the courts tend to leave the parties as they are. “The doctrine of in pari delicto, Latin for equal guilt, is based on two premises: (1) the courts should not grant good offices to the settlement of disputes between criminals; and (2) the refusal to unload a criminal is an effective deterrent against illegality.
(28 NY Prac., Contract Law 7:13). Since the agreement between the applicant and the defendant is based on unlawful conduct, the court refuses to support an applicant seeking discharge. The law does not help any of the parties, since they are also guilty (28 NY Prac., contract law 7:13). Similarly, the oral contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is illegal. Both parties knew that the trials were to be the sole product of the defendant`s daughter. The applicant cannot write the essays and let the girl say that this is her own job. Under their agreement, the applicants and the defendants attempted to create a scheme in which they would present the applicant`s work as the work of the defendant`s daughter. The rules in the above cases were found to be illegal, leading the Tribunal to declare the contracts unenforceable. In this case, the contract was illegal because it was based on a system to deceive higher education institutions that required the admission of the girl.
Therefore, the treaty is not applicable. It is well established that illegal contracts are not enforced by the courts. In Carmine v Murphy, 285 NY 413 (1941), the applicant allegedly sold and delivered alcoholic beverages to the defendant and would require that the unpaid balance be paid in full. The applicant was not properly licensed for the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages in New York State. The general rule is that no act can be based on an illegal contract (Carmine v Murphy, 285 NY 413 (1941)). The Court found that the contract was illegal and unenforceable.