Can a warrant, subpoena, court order, etc. require you to violate terms and conditions or a contract?
<p>There's been a lot of attention lately to websites getting subpoenas to hand over user information, and then potentially getting a gag order as well for the subpoena.  I'm wondering (just for curiosity's sake) if a website (or any individual/company) can be legally required to either violate a contract or a ToS agreement.</p>

<p>For example, if a service's ToS agreed to use a certain level of encryption for passing around private data, could a court require that encryption be changed or lifted?  Or could it only subpoena the encrypted data.</p>

<p>Yes. Contracts do not excuse a site from obeying the law, and the law requires sites to obey court orders. "It violates my contract with a third party" is not a valid reason to disobey a court, and disobeying a court order is contempt. On the other hand, contract law (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) says that contracts that violate the law or public policy are invalid, and so you could not win a breach of contract suit if the defendant could not legally comply with the contract. </p>

<p>Now, a contract might require the company to attempt all possible legal ways to get the court to revoke its order, or to avoid the order in the first place (for instance, if Google does no business in China, a U.S. court might not excuse them from a contract because they capitulated to the Chinese government). However, when push comes to shove, private contracts are lower priority than court orders.</p>

<p>Many contracts I've read explicitly excuse parties from violating the terms (to the most limited degree possible) when compelled by law.  Here is a sample from an NDA:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nothing herein shall restrict Recipient’s right to disclose the
  Confidential Information where such disclosure is required by written
  order of a judicial, legislative, or administrative authority of
  competent jurisdiction, or is necessary to establish Recipient’s
  rights under this NDA; provided, however that, in each case, Recipient
  will, if reasonably practicable and not prohibited by law, first
  notify Owner of such need or requirement. Recipient will cooperate
  with Owner in limiting the scope of the proposed disclosure and take
  all reasonable steps to obtain further appropriate means of limiting
  the scope of the required disclosure of Owner’s Confidential
  Information, provided that Owner reimburses Recipient for all
  reasonable, documented costs associated with any such cooperation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Which makes me wonder if, absent such a provision, a party to a contract <em>could</em> face the dilemma of either violating their contract or violating a judicial order.  I.e., face the consequences of breach of contract or face the consequences of contempt of court.  There must be some interesting case law on this....</p>

<p>Contracts are made <strong>under</strong> the law.</p>

<p>Any term of a contract that seeks to limit or restrict the operation of any arm of government are illegal and unenforceable.</p>

<p>Specifically, a court order <strong>must</strong> be complied with; if a contract says otherwise then that term and possibly the whole contract are void.</p>

contract-law