Additionally, we find the facts of this case distinguishable from Hoffman and its holding inapplicable. In Hoffman we held a contract void because it violated a statute requiring a real estate broker to have a license. However, this action does not concern the violation of a statute. Rather, we have determined that the Rules do not have the effect of a statute. Next, we must address Trotter's contention that the Rules are designed to protect the public, and therefore, that this agreement is contrary to public policy.
Public policy is derived from constitutional and statutory enactments and judicial decisions.
Id. Additionally, whenever a court considers invalidating a contract, the court must always weigh the parties' freedom to contract. Thus, whether a contract violates public policy is a question of law for us to determine based upon all the circumstances. However, where there is not a clear manifestation of public policy, we will invalidate a contract only if it has the tendency to injure the public, is contrary to the public good, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals. In considering all of the circumstances of this case, we find that the Trotter-Nelson contract is not contrary to public policy as a matter of law and, therefore, is enforceable. In making this determination, the primary focus is whether there is a clearly delineated public policy.