53
35
35
14 See 2017 WL 8895640 (D. Ore. Nov. 7, 2017), 15 Id. at *6 (rejecting the defendant’s illegal contract defense).
In Tarr v. USF Reddaway, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Oregon similarly declined to accept the illegal contract defense because the federal government did not enforce the Controlled Substances Act.14 Instead, the Tarr court explained that cannabis operations in states that legalized such operations were sui generis and therefore not illegal for contractual purposes:15
Marijuana's legal status is unique. It is neither fully legal nor illegal. Because Tarr's family cannabis business is allegedly legal under Washington law, I conclude that in a diversity action, Plaintiff may recover economic damages based on projected profits from that business. I therefore recommend denying Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for lost income from the wholesale cannabis business.
Thus, unlike the Bart Street court, the Tarr court declined to assume operations in states that had legalized recreational cannabis were per se illegal under federal law when considering the illegal contract defense.