Summary
observing that there are "innumerable cases in which the word ‘void’ when used in statutes, ordinances, and in a variety of other contexts has been interpreted to mean ‘voidable.’ "
Summary of this case from XRI Inv. Holdings v. HolifieldOpinion
Argued June 9, 1978
August 23, 1978.
Horse racing — Pennsylvania Rules of Racing — Claiming race — Inaccurate claim form — Words and phrases — Void — Voidable.
1. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Racing a claim to a race horse filed in connection with a claiming race is void if the information on the claim form is not completely accurate, and a statement by the claiming party that he is a registered race horse owner or licensed agent for such an owner as required by the Rules, which is untrue, renders the claim form inaccurate. [290-1]
2. Although the term "void" means technically that the contract thus referred to is of no effect whatsoever, the term is not always so used and can be used to mean "voidable." [291]
3. A false statement made by a person filing a claim to a race horse in connection with a claiming race renders the claim voidable at the option of the innocent original owner of the race horse, and to interpret the applicable Rule of Racing so as to declare the claim void, rather than merely voidable, would allow the claiming party to take advantage of his own misrepresentations to avoid his contractual obligations by rescinding the contract at will by revealing his own misstatement which was known only to the claiming party. [291-2]
Argued June 9, 1978, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., MENCER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 654 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission in case of Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission v. William Prickett and Joseph Yannuzzi, No. 76-098.
Race horse sale declared void and fine assessed against purchaser by board of stewards. Original owner appealed to the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission. Board of stewards reversed. Horse declared to be property of purchaser. Purchaser appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Julius E. Fioravanti, for petitioner.
Larrick B. Stapleton, General Counsel, for respondent.
This rather unusual case involves a dispute over an unwanted and allegedly lame horse named Free Puff. Free Puff's owner, Sundance Stables, entered the horse in a "claiming race" on October 28, 1976. The entry of a horse in a claiming race is, in effect, an offer to sell the horse for its "entered prize." See Rule of Racing 12.01. The "offer" is accepted by making a "claim," i.e., by completing a claim form and depositing it in the appropriate box 15 minutes prior to the start of the race. Only registered owners of race horses or their licensed agents are authorized to make claims. Id. Title to the claimed horse vests in the claimant when the gates open and the claiming race starts. Rule of Racing 12.15.
Prior to the start of the claiming race in which Free Puff was scheduled to run, Joseph Yannuzzi, the appellant herein, deposited a claim form for Free Puff on which he purported to be a licensed agent for a registered owner. The race was run as scheduled, although the record does not reveal how Free Puff finished. At the conclusion of the race, Sundance Stables delivered the horse to Yannuzzi. Approximately two days later, Yannuzzi informed the stewards that at the time he made the claim he was not a registered owner or a licensed agent and that his claim was therefore in violation of Rule of Racing 12.01. On November 10, 1976, a Board of Stewards fined Yannuzzi $150 for violation of the rules of racing, declared the sale void, and ordered Free Puff returned to Sundance Stables.
Yannuzzi contends that at the time he made the claim he was not aware that he was not properly licensed.
The next day, Sundance Stables appealed this order to the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission (Commission). Testimony was taken by the Commission, in which Yannuzzi admitted that he was not a registered owner or a licensed agent. Sundance Stables produced testimony indicating that Free Puff had become lame while in Yannuzzi's custody. This was denied by Yannuzzi, however. On February 27, 1977, the Commission entered an order reversing the stewards as to the ownership of Free Puff and adjudging the horse to be the property of Yannuzzi. Yannuzzi then appealed to this Court.
The Commission sustained the imposition of the $150 fine, and Yannuzzi is not here contesting this portion of the Commission's order.
Rule of Racing 12.10 provides that a claim is "void" if the information on the claim form is not "completely accurate." Yannuzzi contends that, since his representation that he was a licensed agent was false, his claim is "void" under Rule 12.10 and he should therefore be able to avoid his obligations regarding Free Puff. The Commission, however, interpreted the word "void" to mean that a claim is "voidable . . . at the instance of the prior owner, as an innocent and injured party to the transaction."
It is true that there is an important technical distinction between "void" and "voidable": The term "void" is properly applied to those contracts that are of no effect whatsoever, whereas a "voidable" contract can be cured by the act or confirmation of one of the parties. Black's Law Dictionary 1745 (rev'd 4th ed. 1968). The word "void" is not always used with technical precision. "['Void'] is an indefinite expression that has no fixed meaning, and what is only voidable is often called void." Larkin v. Saffarans, 15 F. 147, 152 (W.D. Tenn. 1883). There are innumerable cases in which the word "void" when used in statutes, ordinances, and in a variety of other contexts has been interpreted to mean "voidable." See, e.g., Jones v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 423 Pa. 416, 224 A.2d 205 (1966); New Mexico ex rel. New Mexico Tax Commission v. Garcia, 77 N.M. 703, 427 P.2d 230 (1967); United States ex rel. Pan-Caribe Construction Co. v. Peco International, S.A., 243 F. Supp. 250 (D. Canal Zone 1965). See also cases collected at 44 Words Phrases 525, 532-49 (Perm. ed. 1962).
Did the Commission here err in interpreting the word "void" in Rule 12.10 to mean "voidable"? We think not. To hold otherwise would allow Yannuzzi to take advantage of his own misrepresentation to avoid his contractual obligations. In addition, such an interpretation would allow other claimants, dissatisfied with the performance or physical condition of the claimed horse, to rescind the sale at some indefinite time in the future by revealing an inaccuracy in the claim form known only to them. Although the Commission here made no finding on the contention that Free Puff became lame while in Yannuzzi's custody, Yannuzzi's interpretation of Rule 12.10 would require Sundance Stables to accept the return of the horse, even if the contention were true. We do not believe that the rule can be reasonably construed to require such a result.
The Commission and Yannuzzi have treated this matter as though Yannuzzi had made the claim on his own behalf, and we have done the same. We are not here concerned with Yannuzzi's rights vis-a-vis the principal for whom Yannuzzi was purporting to act.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 1978, the order of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, dated February 27, 1977, is hereby affirmed.