Cited by

Cf. 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (declining to adopt a new contract rule and emphasizing courts apply existing common law and statutory principles); ¶ 2 (2018) (noting that Arizona courts generally decline to create new common law duties absent legislative guidance).

See, (“Freedom of contract and freedom in the use and disposition of one’s own are no less sacred than freedom of speech.”); 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (“Our law generally presumes .

That being said, “[o]ur law generally presumes, especially in commercial contexts, that private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests.” 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 8 (2008); see also Tenet Healthsystem TGH, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (“The nature and extent of a guarantor’s liability depends upon the terms of the guaranty contract.”).

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008).

1938)), and when entered into voluntarily, courts will enforce the contract’s provisions, 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (“[B]argains struck between competent parties will be enforced.”).

¶41 “Contract provisions are enforceable unless prohibited by law or otherwise contrary to identifiable public policy.” CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 6 (2014) (citing 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 (2008)).

¶21 Arizona generally presumes “private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests.” 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008).

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC, v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 8 (2008).

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 (2008) (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”); (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed under the contract are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); Landi v. Arkules, 172

at 412, ¶ 7 (citing 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178 (1981)).

See 1800 Ocotillo, L.L.C. v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 (2008) (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”) ( ¶ 13 (2008), and Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178 (Am.

Brimley retained the right to inspect the property to serve his own interests, cf. 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (stating the presumption that “private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests”), but he relinquished the right to cancel for the universe of reasons outside the narrowly-circumscribed basis set forth in amended paragraph 6(j).

of Tucson, Inc., ¶ 17 (2012); Cummings, 28 Ariz. at 214, a policy that is also reflected in our state constitution’s protecting the right to recover damages for injuries and limiting defenses that effectively relieve a defendant of any duty of care, see Ariz. Const. art. 18, §§ 5, 6; 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., -06 ¶¶ 22- 31 (2008) (discussing purpose of article 18, section 5).

1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., see also Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., ¶¶ 2, 8, 1005 (2005).

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7, (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”).

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 8, (“[C]ourts should rely on public policy to displace the private ordering of relationships only when the term is contrary to an otherwise identifiable public policy that clearly outweighs any interests in the term’s enforcement.”).

See 1800 Ocotillo, L.L.C. v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 8 (2008) (“Our law generally presumes, especially in commercial contexts, that private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests.”) (citation omitted).

1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 7

See 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., ¶ 7 , (“Contract provisions are unenforceable if they violate legislation or other identifiable public policy.”); , (“Recovery will be denied if the acts to be performed are themselves illegal or contrary to public policy.”); Land

“Our law generally presumes, especially in commercial contexts, that private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests.” 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 8

However, our supreme court has emphasized the societal benefits arising from the freedom of parties to contract and warned that courts must therefore be “hesitant to declare contractual provisions invalid on public policy grounds.” 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., 2 Observing specifically that “[o]ur law generally presumes .

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 1 , (applying the economic loss doctrine in a construction defect case to limit the property owner to its contractual remedies); 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., ¶ 1 , (upholding a liability-limitation clause in the contract between the parties).

Cf. 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., 219 Ariz. 23 200, 202-04 ¶¶ 9-21, -26 (2008) (rejecting argument that contractual liability limits in design professional contracts are contrary to public policy).