The way I’ve always understood the relationship between federal and state laws is that the stricter law took effect. I have also understood that you can not enforce a contract that has a provision that is against the law…
I have recently heard of a contact that has:
Is it legal to specify federal jurisdiction and not state in a contract (even if the action is not allowed under state laws?) If the clause is not legal, does that invalidate the whole contract or just that provision? Does it make a difference because it references Medicare which is mostly a federal program (though, this has to do with Part D [prescriptions])?
[FYI, I haven’t seen the actual contract, the quote was posted on a blog I read and it made me think about the law, and there is no better place to ask that the SDMB]
Disclaimer: While this is a real life issue, it doesn’t actually effect me personally, and not asking for legal advise, so figured GQ was the best place to put it. If the Mods disagree, then please move to IMHO, but would still like a factual answer… Oh, and you’re not my lawyer, I don’t even know if you are a lawyer, and even if you are, you’re probably not licensed in my state (and even though the question is about federal/state relations, as far as I know lawyers are only licensed by state)