Opinion ID: 1801184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: unlawful contract

Text: The elevator's final contention is that the contract is unenforceable because it is a contract to do an act forbidden by law. It is generally the law in this state and elsewhere that a contract to do an act forbidden by express provision of law is unenforcible and the courts will not lend their aid to parties engaged in such an illegal transaction. [Citation omitted.] Loy v. Kessler, 76 N.D. 738, 39 N.W.2d 260, 267 (1949). The elevator argues that § 19-18-03, NDCC, forbids the sale of unregistered and improperly packaged or labeled pyrenone, an economic poison. This section provides, in part: No person shall distribute, sell, or offer for sale within this state or deliver for transportation or transport in intrastate commerce or between points within this state through any point outside this state any of the following: 1. Any economic poison which has not been registered pursuant to the provisions of section 19-18-04, . . . 2. Any economic poison unless it is in the registrant's or the manufacturer's unbroken immediate container, and there is affixed to such container, and to the outside container or wrapper of the retail package, if there be one through which the required information on the immediate container cannot be clearly read, a label bearing: a. The name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person for whom manufactured; b. The name, brand, or trademark under which said article is sold; and c. The net weight or measure of the content subject, however, to such reasonable variations as the commissioner may permit; It is further contended by the elevator that Pride's failure to obtain a license pursuant to the requirements of § 4-35-12, NDCC, makes the contract illegal and unenforceable. Section 4-35-12 provides, in part: It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute restricted use pesticides or assume to act as a restricted use pesticide dealer, at any time, without first having obtained an annual license . . . . The trial court first of all found that the testimony presented to the Court failed to prove that pyrenone was not registered in North Dakota during 1975. In our review of the entire evidence we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in this finding. Additionally, the trial court concluded that pyrenone was not required to be registered before the sale from Pride to the elevator. We agree with this conclusion. Within the scope of § 19-18-03(1) and (2), NDCC, Pride made no distribution, sale, or offer for sale of pyrenone in North Dakota. Pride was not acting as a dealer with a location or outlet in North Dakota and hence was not required by § 4-35-12, NDCC, to obtain a pesticide dealer license. The sales contract in this case is valid and enforceable. The judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, SAND and VOGEL, JJ., concur.