(R v Registrar of Companies, ex parte Attorney General )
In the Miss Whiplash case some years ago the judge declared:
"It is well settled that a contract which is made upon a sexually immoral consideration or for a sexually immoral purpose is against public policy and is illegal and unenforceable. The fact that it does not involve or may not involve the commission of a criminal offence in no way prevents the contract being illegal, being against public policy and therefore being unenforceable. Here, as the documents clearly indicate, the association, (Miss Whiplashes Ltd Company) is for the purpose of carrying on a trade which involves illegal contracts because the purpose is a sexually immoral purpose and as such against public policy".
Although, the above case refers to the act of trading as a prostitute, the key words to note are, ?It is well settled?, "Sexually immoral purpose." and "Unenforceable."
Bearing in mind, that although a contract might not clearly state, that a performer is required to perform in, ?Hard core porn?. Indeed, the performer?s obligation may be cloaked in language that masks the ultimate goal.
However, in a case of breach of said contract brought about by the Producer against the performer, under cross examination, by the defendant?s learned counsel, it would soon become clear from the defendant ie the performer, that the ultimate and inherent intention within the contract, although unwritten, was to obligate him or her to have sexual intercourse, with anyone the plaintiff so chose, with a camera present and on a number of occasions. In addition, learned counsel, would almost certainly, bring forth a wide selection of the plaintiff?s previous, ? Works?, for perusal by the judge, at his or her leisure, in order to confirm in the judges mind, the raison d?etre of the plaintiff?s company.
In the event that the plaintiff had an internet based company and in the not so unlikely event that the learned judge, had not heard of the internet. I am sure learned counsel for the defendant, would be delighted to furnish the judge with a so called, ?Notebook? computer, a membership password to the plaintiff?s website, links to some particularly juicy scenes together with a pupil (Preferably of a strict moral and religious background) to tutor M?Lud in the art of surfing through a hard-core porn site. Not before pointing out to the judge that this material could, in theory, be accessed in the UK alone, by at least 25 million people?.. of all ages.
So, under further cross examination, it could be established that the performer, had been obligated to perform sexual tasks, within the context of the ?scenes? that a person of good character, or indeed a jury, would find possibly repulsive and immoral. Please note, that one has no right to a jury in a case of breach of contract, so in most cases, it would remain for the judge to make the ultimate decision. Of course the case could be referred to the Queen?s Bench Division, but this would be unlikely in such a case, because the words in the above judgement, ?It is well settled?, suggest that this principle has been discussed and decided on a number of previous occasions.
Not that I know anything about the Law of Contract!
So, ladies and gentlemen, in the light of the points that I have made, my question is, would a judge in these enlightened times, consider a contract that obligates one party to perform in a variety of hard-core porn scenes, at different levels of perversity, over a fixed term, in return for a consideration, consider the performance of the contract to be for, "A Sexually immoral purpose?"
Answers please, particularly from judges, learned counsel, or ideally the Attorney General himself! LOL