The defendant stated that it understood the agreement in such a way that the plaintiff [*2] would only deal with the tests. The defendant and her daughter felt compelled to use the applicant`s services because they were limited in time to receive applications for college studies. The trustee expressed concern that the applicant might write the essays because the student must confirm that they wrote the essay. The plaintiff admitted that he knew that the defendant`s daughter had to confirm that she had written the essays. The parties verbally agreed that the plaintiff would work on the defendant`s daughter`s college applications, at an agreed rate of $125 per hour for each hour he personally worked with the defendant`s daughter. For all hours that the applicant worked independently at his place of residence, the rate was $100 per hour. There was no written agreement. The agreement provided that the plaintiff would provide assistance to work on the defendant`s daughter`s academic essays. The defendant regularly paid the plaintiff for the services he provided.
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of being satisfied with the services provided. When both parties are equally at fault (in pari delicto), courts tend to leave the parties as they are. „The doctrine of in pari delicto, Latin for equality of guilt, rests on two premises: (1) courts should not use their good offices to deal with disputes between criminals; and (2) refusing to exonerate an offender is an effective means of deterring illegality. (28 NY Prac., Contract Law § 7:13). The common app is used as a platform for students to easily apply to colleges. According to the common application, students must confirm that all their work belongs to them. The applicant`s activity of writing and editing essays for students draws their attention to the certification. He knew that students would have to confirm that essays were their own work because he had written essays for students in the past. The defendant is also aware of this because it allowed the plaintiff to work on her daughter`s essays in her spare time. Both parties knew that the applicant had written the essays on behalf of the girl with the intention of sending them to schools. In doing so, the parties entered into an illegal contract.
In addition, in Sabia v. Mattituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard, Inc., 805 N.Y.S.2d 346 (1st Department 2005), the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff alleged that a boat purchased by the defendant was defective. According to their initial agreement, both parties tried to avoid paying VAT when purchasing the boat. „Since no right of action can arise from an illegal contract, the law prohibits plaintiffs from pursuing the alleged contract for the purchase of the boat … Id. at p. 347. The court ruled that the system was illegal and therefore unenforceable. 1. When are the parties to an illegal agreement betting? Similarly, the oral contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is unlawful in the present case. Both parties knew that the trials had to be the only product of the accused`s daughter.
The plaintiff can`t write the essays and ask the girl to pretend it`s her own job. .