Court Opinion

ID: 9521886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:14:39.008092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:24.528588
License: Public Domain

JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority’s holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to enforce the contract. I write separately because I reach that same conclusion on a different basis. As the facts cited by the majority clearly show, the contract at issue violates public policy in Arkansas with regard to usury, and the 11?,predatory loan practices of Gulfco are against public interest. The courts hold the power to declare a contract void for contravening public policy or where it violates the interests of the public. See Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Denver Roller, Inc., 313 Ark. 128, 854 S.W.2d 312 (1993); Sirman v. Sloss Realty Co., 198 Ark. 534, 129 S.W.2d 602 (1939). In the present case, I would declare the contract void as against public policy and against public interest.