The term \u201cgood morals\u201d denotes ethical rules that govern social relations alongside, and in harmony with, legal rules. They reflect public morality and set standards of conduct consistent with it. Under Article 26(1), third alternative, of the Obligations and Contracts Act, transactions contrary to good morals are void. These are transactions whose content, purpose or manner of conclusion manifestly and seriously breaches those standards, in a way that would provoke general indignation among those who learn of the transaction. This is an objective ground of nullity. The parties\u2019 personal views on the standards or their breach have no legal bearing. The assessment concerns the time when the transaction was concluded; subsequent conduct cannot establish its nullity on this ground (see Grounds of Nullity under Article 26(1) of the Obligations and Contracts Act, Sibi, 2013, pp. 221\u2013228).<\/p>\n
Good morals presuppose a degree of equivalence between the performances exchanged. A manifest disparity may indicate a breach rendering a transaction void. The imbalance would have to be so great that one party\u2019s performance amounts in practice to no performance at all.<\/p>\n
This article is not a legal opinion or advice on any particular situation or person. For help with an individual case, consult a lawyer practising civil law.<\/em>
\n