Under GOL, which provision is disfavored or void as against public policy

• A. A clause exempting a party from liability for negligence
• B. A clause requiring deceptive practices
• C. A wagering contract on a race
• D. A clause limiting wage payments to comply with minimums

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that under New York General Obligations Law, a contract clause that excuses or relieves a party from liability for negligence is generally disfavored and void as against public policy. Courts view such exculpatory provisions as undermining the duty of care and the remedial purpose of tort law, since they allow one party to escape accountability for harmful conduct. That’s why a clause attempting to shield a party from negligence liability is the best answer.

The other options cover different public-policy concerns: a clause that would compel deceptive practices conflicts with fraud laws; a wagering contract on a race is void due to illegality of gambling; and a clause limiting wage payments to meet minimums would violate wage-and-hour laws. Each of those is void for reasons outside the specific public policy about negligence waivers, making the negligence-exemption clause the correct focus under GOL.