IMPAIR

10 definitions found across Law Mind sources

IMPAIRAuthored
The Law Mind • 1090 words
Definition
To impair means to weaken, diminish, or injuriously affect something — its quantity, quality, value, strength, or legal force. The term operates at two levels in legal usage: 1. General legal sense. Any act or condition that diminishes, weakens, or makes worse. Courts apply it broadly: impaired vision, impaired capacity, impaired collateral. In this sense it is largely descriptive and context-dependent. 2. Constitutional sense — impairing the obligation of contracts. The specific, technical use of the term arises from Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any State from passing a law "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Here, "impair" means something more precise: a state law impairs a contractual obligation when it substantially reduces the rights a party was entitled to enforce at the time the contract was made, or when it retroactively diminishes the legal remedy available for breach. The prohibition targets legislative interference with existing contractual relationships, not merely inconvenience or regulatory adjustment. 3. Suretyship and commercial law sense. A creditor "impairs collateral" when, by act or omission, the creditor reduces the value or availability of security held against a debt, thereby prejudicing the surety or guarantor who would have recourse to that collateral upon payment of the obligation. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Not fit or appropriate; unsuitable." (Note: Wiktionary's entry reflects a secondary adjectival sense — "impaired" as a condition — rather than the core verb.) Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "To make worse; to diminish in quantity, value, excellence, or strength; to deteriorate." The common meaning tracks the legal meaning closely at the surface — both connote making something worse or weaker. The gap opens in the constitutional context, where "impair" carries a specific doctrinal weight: not every law that makes a contract less advantageous impairs its obligation in the constitutional sense. Courts have spent two centuries calibrating where ordinary disadvantage ends and constitutional impairment begins. A researcher who reads "impair" in a constitutional law source with only the common dictionary meaning in mind will miss that doctrinal precision entirely. ---
Common Confusion
IMPAIR vs. VOID. A law that impairs a contract does not necessarily void it. Impairment is a constitutional standard for measuring the degree of interference; courts may find impairment without finding a contract unenforceable as written. The remedial analysis is separate. IMPAIR vs. FRUSTRATE (contracts). In contract doctrine, "frustration of purpose" and "impairment" describe different phenomena. Frustration refers to circumstances that undermine the reason a party entered the contract; impairment of the obligation is a constitutional concept about legislative interference. The terms should not be used interchangeably across doctrinal contexts. IMPAIR COLLATERAL vs. IMPAIR OBLIGATION. In suretyship law, impairing collateral is a defense available to a surety against the creditor; impairing the obligation of contracts is a constitutional defense available to a private party against state legislation. They share vocabulary but operate in entirely different legal frameworks. ---
Why It Matters in Research
The constitutional phrase "impairing the obligation of contracts" is the primary legal context that gives this term its research weight, and the doctrinal meaning has shifted significantly over time. Early 19th-century sources — Story's Commentaries, Kent's Commentaries — treated the Contracts Clause as a robust restraint on state legislative power. By the 20th century, following Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), the clause was substantially narrowed: states retain police power to regulate contracts in the public interest even when doing so incidentally impairs contractual obligations. A researcher reading pre-1934 constitutional sources will encounter a doctrine considerably stronger than what current courts apply. This is one of the sharpest historical divergences in American constitutional law and is not flagged in any of the historical dictionary sources consulted here. In suretyship research, "impair" appears in the context of the surety's discharge defense. A surety who is released when a creditor impairs collateral relies on a doctrine codified in modern commercial law (Article 3 of the UCC addresses accommodation parties; Article 9 touches secured party duties). Historical sources predate UCC codification entirely. Researchers moving from treatise sources into case law must account for this statutory overlay. Watch for "impair" used loosely in judicial opinions as a descriptive term — "the regulation impairs the value of the contract" — without triggering constitutional analysis. Not every judicial use of the word invokes the Contracts Clause. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries agree on the core verb: to weaken, diminish, relax, or injuriously affect. Anderson's is the most expansive, cataloguing multiple dimensions — quantity, value, excellence, strength, power. Burrill adds "take from," suggesting partial deprivation. Black's (both editions) and Burrill each immediately pivot to "impairing the obligation of contracts" as the term's primary legal significance, treating the constitutional phrase as the reason the term warrants a dictionary entry at all. Black's 1st edition directs researchers to Story's Commentaries (§§ 1374–1399) and Kent's Commentaries (pp. 413–422) and to Pomeroy's Constitutional Law and Black's own Constitutional Prohibitions — references that remain useful as historical benchmarks of pre-20th-century doctrine. Burrill points to the same Story and Kent passages. Anderson's cites early English and American case law to illustrate the general meaning in commercial contexts. What no historical source addresses: the 20th-century contraction of Contracts Clause doctrine, the UCC framework for impairment of collateral in suretyship, or the modern distinction between substantial impairment and merely incidental regulatory effects. Researchers should treat these sources as valuable for 19th-century context only. ---
Jurisdictional Note
The constitutional prohibition binds state legislatures; the federal government is not subject to Article I, Section 10. State constitutional analogues vary — some state constitutions contain their own contracts clauses, which state courts have occasionally interpreted more broadly than the federal floor. Impairment of collateral doctrine in suretyship is now substantially governed by the UCC as adopted in each state, with some variation in non-uniform amendments. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Contracts Clause — Limits on State Impairment of Obligations (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia) Suretyship — Defenses of the Surety: Discharge by Modification, Extension, Impairment of Collateral (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia) ---
Related Terms
Obligation of contracts — Contracts Clause — Surety — Discharge of surety — Impairment of collateral — Vested rights — Police power — Retroactivity — Frustration of purpose — Collateral (secured transactions) — Accommodation party
IMPAIRmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
To weaken, diminish, or re- lax, or otherwise affect in an injurious man- ner. "IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS." For the meaning of this phrase in the constitution of the United States, see 2 Story, Const. §§ 1374-1399; 1 Kent, Comm. 413-422; Pom. Const. Law; Black, Const. Prohib. pt. 1.
IMPAIRmain
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910
To weaken, diminish, or relax, or otherwise affect in an injurious manner. Davey v. tna L. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 20 Fed. 482; State v. Carew, 13 Rich. Law (S. C.) 541, 91 Am. Dec. 245; Swinburne v. Mills, 17 Wash. 611, 50 Pac. 489, 61 Am. St. Rep. 932. . IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
IMPAIRmain
Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890
To make worse to diminish in quantity, value, excellence, strength; to lessen in power; to deteriorate. To relax, weaken, injure. Impair health. See INTEMPERATE. "No State shall pass any pairing the Obligation of Contracts." 8 Law im1 See Thompson v. Gibson, 8 M. & W. *286-89 (1841); McLure v. Colclough, 17 Ala. 100 (1849); Gaddis ads. Howell, 31 N. J. L. 316 (1865); Lockwood v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., 47 Conn. 566-68 (1880), cases; 11 F. R. 555; 44 Ind. 460; 51 Md. 512; 14 Neb. 151-52; 20 Barb. 468; 29 Pa. 198; 40 id. 289; 75 id. 378; 43 Wis. 318, 479; 62 id. 244; 5 Biss. 476; 43 III. 155; 13 N. J. L. 313; L. R., 4 Q. B. 471; 20 Moak, 466, 463. The Head-Money Cases, 18 F. R. 135 (1883), Blatchford, J.: s. c. 112 U. S. 580 (1884), Miller, J. L. immunis, free from public service: in, not; munus, duty. Lonas v. State, 3 Heisk. 306 (1871). To relieve the distress which followed the war of the Revolution, paper money was issued, worthless lands, and other property of no use to the creditor, were made a tender in payment of debts, and the time of payment stipulated in contracts was extended by law. These were the peculiar evils of the day. So much mischief was done and so much more apprehended, that general distrust prevailed, and confidence between man and man was destroyed. To restore public confidence, the framers of the Constitution prohibited the use of any means by which the same mischief might again be produced: they established the principle that contracts should be inviolable.¹ The reference is to contracts respecting property, under which an individual may claim a right to something beneficial to himself. The contracts protected are such as relate to property rights, not governmental. It may not be easy to tell on which side of the line a particular case is to be put. There was no intention to restrain the States in the regulation of their civil institutions, adopted for internal government.2 The prohibition does not include grants for public purposes, which are in effect mere regulations of internal police. See further MONOPOLY POLICY, 1, Public. "Obligation" means the law which binds the parties to perform their undertaking. See OBLIGATION, 3. The prohibition applies to implied as well as to express, and to executory as well as to executed, contracts: as, a grant of lands by a State to an individual; or, a compact between States; or, a grant of corporate powers 8 - unless a right of revocation or alteration is reserved in the grant or by a general law. But it does not include all contracts by a State with its public officers or municipal corporations. 10 After a public officer has rendered the services required of the committee on style, resolute not "to countenance the issue of paper money, and the consequent violation of contracts," of himself added "No State shall pass laws altering or impairing the obligation of contracts." In the shorter form adopted by the convention, "an end was designed to be made to barren land laws, laws for the installment of debts, and laws closing the courts against suitors," -2 Bancroft, Hist. Const. 214 (1882). 1 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 204, 206, 199 (1819), Marshall, C. J. 2 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 628 (1819), Marshall, C. J.; Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 416 (1850); Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 557 (1879); Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. *572 (1837); 2 Bancroft, Hist. Const. 213; Federalist, No. 44. 3 Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 820, 816 (1879). • East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How. 535 (1850). * Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 197 (1819), supra. • Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 137 (1810). 7 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 84 (1823). Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 628 (1819); Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 437 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 310 (1879). • Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 223 (1876), cases. Webster's Dict.; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 600 (1869). (1877). • Constitution, Art. I, sec. 10. Gouverneur Morris, of Holyoke Company v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 522 (1872). 10 Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 416-17 (1850). Remedial. Affording a remedy; supplying defects in the common or statutory law: as, remedial statutes, legislation.3 The remedial part of the law is that whereby a method is pointed out to recover private rights, or redress private wrongs. See further STATUTE. Adequate remedy.. May mean complete satisfaction of such judgment as may be recovered without restriction. 4 See ADEQUATE, 2. Civil remedy. Redress afforded by a civil court for a private injury. Cumulative remedy. A remedy, created by statute, additional to the other remedy or remedies already existing. Where a statute creates a new right or liability and at the same time gives a remedy, such remedy is exclusive; but when the right or remedy was not created by the statute, but would have existed without the statute, the statutory remedy is cumulative. Whenever a statute gives a new right without creating a special remedy for its enforcement, it may be enforced by any appropriate common-law action. So where a right is to be enforced by a common-law action, it is immaterial whether the right has been conferred by statute or common law. Equitable remedy. Redress afforded by a court exercising equity powers. Legal remedy. Redress afforded by a court exercising purely common-law powers. Extraordinary remedy. Relief furnished by a court of chancery exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. Judicial or legal remedy. "Judicial remedy," in its largest sense, comprehends more than a direct proceeding against a party to a contract to compel him to perform its stipulations. It comprises, also, judicial Stratton v. European, &c. R. Co., 74 Me. 428 (1883), Danforth, J. 2 Johnson v. Fletcher, 54 Miss, 631 (1877), Chalmers, J. [1 Bl. Com. 86. 4 [United States v. New Orleans, 17 F. R. 491 (1883), Billings, J. • Godding v. Pierce, 13 R. I. 534 (1882); 11 id. 526; 9 id. 544; 8 Cush. 93; 15 Gray, 221; 1 Chitty, Pl. 112. Union R. & Transit Co. v. Shacklett, 119 III. 239 * Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 407 (1821); 3 Bl. Com. (1886); Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 522 (1887). 116.
IMPAIRv.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
To make worse; to diminish in quantity, value, excellence, or strength; to deteriorate; as, to impair health, character, the mind, value. Time sensibly all things impairs. Roscommon. In years he seemed, but not impaired by years. Pope.
IMPAIRv.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
To grow worse; to deteriorate. Milton.
IMPAIRa.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
Not fit or appropriate. [Obs.]
impairadj
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
Not fit or appropriate; unsuitable.
impairverb
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
To weaken; to affect negatively; to have a diminishing effect on. | To grow worse; to deteriorate.
impairnoun
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
The act of impairing or deteriorating. | The fact of being impaired or having grown worse. | An impairment or deterioration.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In