South Dakota Codified Laws
S.D. Codified Laws § 53-5-3 (2026)
Unlawfulness of object and impossibility of performance renders contract void.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
SD-LEGsdlegislature.gov
JustiaS.D. Codified Laws
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
53-5-3. Unlawfulness of object and impossibility of performance renders contract void.
Where a contract has but a single object and such object is unlawful in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.
Source: CivC 1877, § 904; CL 1887, § 3528; RCivC 1903, § 1222; RC 1919, § 837; SDC 1939, § 10.0403.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Nature's 10 Jewelers v. Gunderson, 2002 SD 80 (S.D. 2002).
Nature's 10 Jewelers v. Gunderson, 2002 SD 80 (S.D. 2002). “unless there is an effective registration statement on file...." Because there was no effective registration statement on file, the agreement between Nature's 10 and Savage was unlawful from its inception.”
Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 370 (S.D. 1991). “SDCL 53-5-3, -4. See also 53-9-1 and 20-2-2.”
Knecht v. Evridge, 940 N.W.2d 318 (S.D. 2020). “Validity and Enforceability of the Supplemental Lease [¶47.”
Johnson v. Sellers, 2011 S.D. 24 (S.D. 2011). “” SDCL 53-5-3 provides: “Where a contract has but a single object and such object is .”
Hanna v. Landsman, 945 N.W.2d 534 (S.D. 2020). “” SDCL 53-5-3. Therefore, when a contract is void, it “is invalid or unlawful from its inception.”
In Re Gridley, 149 B.R. 128 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1992). “§ 53-5-3 to obligate family members to repay loans made to the business — even if the wage earner owns the business and even if the family members have knowledge of the business’s loan transactions.”
Appeal of Lake Preston Hous. Corp. v. South Dakota Dep't of Labor, 1999 SD 5 (S.D. 1999). “1991) (citing SDCL 53-5-3, -4 and 58-9-1 and noting that “under South Dakota law, any contract is ‘void’ insofar as its object is unlawful.”
Alexander v. Est. of Hobart, 2025 S.D. 39 (S.D. 2025). “” SDCL 53-5-3. “A void contract is invalid or unlawful from its inception.”
Lake Preston Hous. Corp. v. State, 1999 SD 5 (S.D. 1999). “, 469 NW2d 370, 372 (SD 1991) (citing SDCL 53-5-3, -4 and 53-9-1 and noting that "under South Dakota law, any contract is 'void' insofar as its object is unlawful.”
Sheehan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (In re Sheehan), 58 B.R. 304 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1986). “To find that the complaint states a cause of action, the court need only conclude that, in some instances, a violation of South Dakota’s ban on corporate control of agricultural land might constitute grounds to declare a contract, such as the mortgage here, void as against…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.