Talk:Void (law)

Unclear wording
"Void ab initio can be said void to fail to complied the fundamentals of contract at the beginning."

What exactly is this sentence trying to say? The wording is unclear, ambiguous, and practically indecipherable. Since I know essentially nothing about law, I can't correct the problem myself. Any thoughts? Agent Zero (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's awful. You have to understand something about the law to understand the sentence. Would you understand a technical phrase to do with anatomy or nuclear physics? JohnOlsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOlsson (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right - that is awful. I'll fix it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The question comes to mind as to whether "Void Ab Initio" can be applied in probate matters. Specifically, if two parties are married as a 2nd or later marriage, then later discover that the prior marriage of one party was not fully terminated by divorce, assuming that the "offending" party thought that they had done all that was necessary, by the (misunderstood?) advice of their legal counsel, to legally end the prior marriage. Then can this party claim "void ab initio" as a valid reason to terminate the new marriage as a means to avoid facing the matter of possible charges of bigamy? 99.12.77.236 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)beachphotographer99.12.77.236 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)