Definition
RAP void contracts are contracts rendered void by operation of the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP). The Rule Against Perpetuities invalidates future interests in property — and, by extension, certain contractual rights tied to those interests — that may not vest within a life in being at the creation of the interest plus twenty-one years. When a contract purports to create or transfer a future interest that violates this rule, the offending provision (or in some cases the entire contract) is treated as void from the outset — not merely voidable, but legally ineffective as though it had never been made.
The classic application arises in real property conveyances, but RAP void contracts extend to commercial agreements, option contracts, rights of first refusal, and certain trust arrangements where the triggering event for vesting might, by any possibility, occur outside the perpetuities period. Courts have consistently held that an interest violating the RAP is void ab initio; no subsequent conduct by the parties can ratify or cure it.
Common Confusion
RAP void contracts are frequently confused with contracts that are void on grounds of illegality or public policy. The distinction matters. A contract void for illegality may implicate restitution, public policy defenses, or in pari delicto doctrine. A RAP void contract fails for a structural temporal defect in the interest created — not because the underlying transaction is improper or against the law in the usual sense. A court analyzing a RAP void contract is not weighing social harm; it is applying a bright-line common law rule about when future interests must vest. Separately, RAP void contracts must be distinguished from voidable contracts: a voidable contract stands until a party elects to avoid it; a RAP void contract has no legal existence and neither party can elect to enforce it.
Core Elements
For a contract or contractual provision to be RAP void, three conditions must converge:
1. A future interest or right is created. The contract must purport to grant an interest that does not vest immediately — an option exercisable in the future, a right of first refusal contingent on a future event, or a remainder or executory interest in property.
2. Vesting might occur beyond the perpetuities period. Under the traditional common law rule (the "might possibly" or "what if" test), if any hypothetical scenario exists in which the interest could vest after the measuring life plus twenty-one years, the interest is void. Modern statutory reforms in many jurisdictions apply a "wait and see" approach or a flat 90-year period, but the classic rule treats the remote possibility as fatal.
3. The void provision is not severable (or severance leaves nothing enforceable). Courts will sever a RAP-violating clause when the remainder of the contract reflects an independent, complete agreement. When the void interest is the contract's essential object, the entire contract fails.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Option contracts: Commercial options to purchase real property have been among the most litigated RAP void contracts. An option exercisable without a fixed perpetuities-compliant deadline is classically void under the traditional rule.
Rights of first refusal: Preemptive purchase rights of indefinite duration are vulnerable under the RAP because the triggering event — the grantor's decision to sell — may never occur within the perpetuities period.
Contingent remainders and executory interests in contract form: Where a contract allocates future property interests contingent on events not tied to lives in being, the same perpetuities analysis applies as in trust or deed instruments.
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "RAP void contracts" does not appear as a unified doctrinal category in most historical legal dictionaries, which treat the Rule Against Perpetuities primarily as a property law concept in the context of wills, trusts, and conveyances. Researchers approaching the Law Mind corpus from a contracts angle must therefore cross-reference property law materials — the RAP doctrine lives in property treatises and encyclopedia entries, not in contract formation literature.
Several research traps exist. First, jurisdictional variation is severe (see Jurisdictional Note below), meaning a historical source applying the strict common law rule may not reflect the current law of the jurisdiction under study. Second, the Bouvier's source material excerpted here addresses public policy voiding of contracts — a distinct concept — which signals that historical dictionaries conflate or adjacently treat RAP voidness with public policy voidness. Researchers should not assume that a historical source's discussion of "void contracts" on public policy grounds applies to RAP voidness; the analytical frameworks differ. Third, reformation doctrines (cy pres in trusts, equitable reformation in some jurisdictions) may save interests that would be void under the strict common law rule, so a historical source applying the traditional rule may yield incorrect results in reformed-statute jurisdictions.
For corpus researchers tracing the evolution of option contract doctrine specifically, the transition from strict RAP voidness to statutory safe harbors is a late-twentieth-century development that many historical dictionary entries do not reflect.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses void contracts and public policy in terms of territorial sovereignty — the principle that a state's public policy governs only transactions occurring within its own jurisdiction. The excerpted passage is concerned with choice-of-law questions, not with the Rule Against Perpetuities as such. This reflects the historical tendency to analyze contract voidness primarily through the lens of illegality or public policy rather than through perpetuities analysis.
This gap is significant: Bouvier's and its contemporaries treat the RAP as a property law doctrine and treat void contracts as a contracts-and-public-policy doctrine. The synthesis of the two — recognizing that an option or right of first refusal in a contract can be void by operation of the RAP — is largely a twentieth-century judicial development. Historical legal dictionaries are therefore incomplete guides to this category of void contracts, and researchers should supplement them with property law treatises and case law on commercial options.
Jurisdictional Note
Jurisdictional variation in this area is substantial and directly affects research outcomes. The traditional common law "might possibly vest" test, which voids interests on the strength of any remote hypothetical, has been modified or replaced in most U.S. jurisdictions. The Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities adopts a "wait and see" period of 90 years, saving interests that actually vest within that period even if they theoretically might not have. Some jurisdictions have abolished the RAP entirely for certain trust arrangements. Researchers must identify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of the rule in force at the time the contract was made.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Rule Against Perpetuities
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Void and Voidable Contracts
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Option Contracts