Definition
To avoid, in law, means to render void, nullify, or deprive of legal effect. The term carries two distinct operative meanings depending on context:
1. SUBSTANTIVE: To annul, cancel, or make void a legal instrument, obligation, or transaction — destroying its efficacy as though it never had legal force. A contract may be avoided by a party entitled to do so; a deed may be avoided by showing incapacity or fraud; a transfer may be avoided by a bankruptcy trustee exercising statutory powers.
2. PLEADING: To evade or escape the legal effect of an adversary's allegations by confessing the facts alleged while asserting new matter that neutralizes them. A defendant who "confesses and avoids" admits the plaintiff's factual allegations but introduces affirmative matter — an excuse, justification, or discharge — that defeats the claim. This is the foundation of the common law pleading device known as a plea in avoidance.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To stay away from something or someone; to try not to meet, encounter, or experience something; to shun or evade.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To keep away from; to shun; to keep clear of. Also (now obsolete): to make void, to annul; to quit or evacuate a place; to emit or throw out.
The everyday sense — simply steering clear of something — has essentially no legal weight on its own. The legal meanings are active and transactional: to avoid is not merely to sidestep but to formally nullify or to defeat by pleading. A researcher who reads "the deed was avoided" and understands it through the modern common lens of avoidance as mere evasion will misread what happened — a legal nullification occurred, not a simple abstention.
---
Common Confusion
AVOID vs. VOID: These are related but distinct operations. Something that is void is a nullity from the outset — it has no legal effect and requires no act to extinguish it. To avoid is an active step that renders something voidable void; the party entitled to avoid must take some action (rescission, entry, pleading) to accomplish the result. An infant's contract is typically voidable, not void — it requires an act of avoidance. Anderson's notes disagreement among authorities on what act is sufficient: entry, a formal deed, or lesser conduct. This distinction matters in instruments, capacity cases, and bankruptcy.
AVOIDANCE (pleading) vs. AVOIDANCE (equity/transaction): The same word describes two different procedural and substantive operations. In pleading, avoidance is the affirmative-defense mechanism of confess-and-avoid. In transactional and bankruptcy law, avoidance is the power to set aside a transfer or instrument. These are not synonymous, and historical sources sometimes shift between the two without flagging the change.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term appears in sources across centuries and doctrinal fields, carrying different weights in each. Several navigational traps exist:
PLEADING CONTEXT: In common law pleading materials — especially pre-code sources — "avoid" and "avoidance" operate as technical terms of art for the confess-and-avoid plea structure. Burrill specifically situates this usage and links it to Avoidance as a separate entry. Researchers working with pre-code pleading records, early American practice materials, or English common law sources should expect this usage and should follow the cross-reference to Avoidance to understand the mechanics.
VOIDABLE INSTRUMENTS: The question of what act is required to accomplish avoidance of a deed or contract — particularly by an infant — was actively contested historically. Anderson flags this disagreement. Sources disagree on whether entry, a solemn act equal to the deed itself, or a lesser act suffices. This is not merely academic: in older title chains and capacity disputes appearing in historical records, whether a conveyance was properly avoided is a live factual and legal question that cannot be resolved by consulting a single authority.
BANKRUPTCY AVOIDANCE POWERS: In modern federal bankruptcy practice, "avoidance" has a precise statutory meaning under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544–548 — the trustee's power to avoid preferential transfers, fraudulent transfers, and certain unperfected liens. This usage is entirely modern and statutory; none of the historical dictionary sources address it. Researchers moving between historical common law materials and modern insolvency materials must recognize that the same word now carries a codified statutory meaning that did not exist when the classical dictionaries were compiled.
CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE: The doctrine of constitutional avoidance — the canon of statutory construction directing courts to interpret statutes to avoid serious constitutional questions where possible — uses "avoid" in yet another register: neither pleading avoidance nor transactional nullification, but interpretive restraint. This doctrine is judicially developed and post-dates all four source dictionaries entirely.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries agree on the core substantive meaning: to annul, cancel, make void, destroy efficacy. Black's (both editions) and Anderson's converge here without divergence. Burrill adds the pleading dimension explicitly — the confess-and-avoid structure — and provides the reference to Blackstone (2 Bl. Com. 308) as authority, which is a genuine and useful pointer for researchers going further back.
Anderson's is the most substantively developed of the four, raising the contested question of what conduct suffices to avoid an infant's deed and flagging disagreement among authorities. This is the kind of doctrinal uncertainty that historical dictionaries rarely flag, and its presence here is useful. Anderson also supplies the opposition terms — affirm, confirm — which orient the term within its conceptual field: avoid is one end of a range of responses to a voidable transaction.
What all four sources miss: bankruptcy avoidance powers and constitutional avoidance entirely, both being post-classical developments. Researchers should treat these dictionary entries as authoritative for common law pleading and transactional contexts but as silent on modern statutory and constitutional dimensions.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The substantive power to avoid contracts, deeds, and transfers exists in all U.S. jurisdictions but the rules governing what renders a transaction voidable — and what act of avoidance is required — vary. Bankruptcy avoidance is federal and governed uniformly by the Bankruptcy Code. State law governs avoidance of contracts for incapacity, fraud, or duress, and those rules are not uniform.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Constitutional Avoidance — The Doctrine of Avoiding Constitutional Questions (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
Avoidance Powers (Preferences, Fraudulent Transfers — Sections 544–548) (The Law Mind Business Organizations & Corporate Law Encyclopedia)
Defenses to Negligence — Mitigation of Damages (Avoidable Consequences) (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
---