A contract is legal or valid when the two parties have the capacity to make an agreement with a valid consideration to do something lawful. These elements are present in CCP management and Hoganmuller’s case. However, the contract can be voidable on the basis that CCP does not have the ability to perform the principal object of the agreement. CCP required having the licenses to perform the things, but it never had the required licenses. However, it can be seen that CCP also performed such tasks which did not require any of the licenses. In this case it has demanded to be compensated for those services where there was no requirement of a license for their performance.
Yet, there needs to be knowledge of additional facts to resolve this issue. Whether Andrew Hoganmuller was ignorant of the fact that CCP does not have the licenses or not at the time of entering the agreement is also essential to be known. In case a severability clause was there in the contract, it would be considered partially voidable making Andrew liable to pay for the services with no requirement of license. In case, the severability clause was not there in the agreement and the terms of the agreement cannot be considered independent of each other, the whole agreement may be void on the basis that CCp did not have the capacity to enter the agreement.
A severability clause divides a contract into many parts where default on one does not make the whole contract void. Yet, since the main objective of the agreement was the performance of tasks which would require licenses, therefore chances stand that the contract will be considered void unless for a severability clause being there in the contract. References: CONTRACT (2010). In Legal Information Institute. Retrieved October 18, 2013, from http://www. law. cornell. edu/wex/contract.