A contract may be unenforceable if a court finds that some or all of the contract is against public policy—against the public good because it is contrary to law or morality. A contract that requires a party to commit a crime, fraud, or immoral act, or that limits a parent’s obligation to support the parent’s child, or that unfairly disadvantages consumers may be void as against public policy. The determination that a contract is void as against public policy is subjective and based on the specific contract and circumstances.

In Arizona, as in other states, a contract may be deemed unenforceable if it is found to be against public policy. This means that if a contract requires any party to engage in illegal activities such as committing a crime or fraud, or if it involves an immoral act, it can be voided by a court. Additionally, contracts that attempt to limit a parent's obligation to provide child support are also against public policy and are therefore unenforceable. Contracts that are grossly unfair to consumers and disadvantage them in a way that offends public policy may also be voided. The determination of whether a contract is against public policy is indeed subjective and will depend on the specific terms of the contract and the context in which it is made. Arizona courts will consider the intent of the parties, the potential harm to the public, and the actual language of the contract when making a determination about enforceability on the grounds of public policy.