Can a law passed by a Legislature be called "immutable?" (that means it's ageless, not ever subject to change).
The Court of Appeals used that word this week in Heaton-Sides v. State Employees Credit Union to describe a statute dealing with foreclosures.
The case dealt with the rights of a person to her personal property after a foreclosure. A homeowner has ten days following a foreclosure to retrieve personal property left in her home, based on a combined reading of G.S. §45-21.29(1) and §42-25.9(g).
The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's argument that Heaton-Sides had waived the ten day period by not taking it up on its invitation that she notify it of her intention to reclaim her property.
Chief Judge Martin ruled that the ten day period could not be waived, holding that:
In contract law there are generally two types of rules: default rules and immutable rules. Default rules are rules that “parties can contract around by prior agreement.” Ian Ayres & Robert Gertner, Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules, 99 Yale L.J. 87, 87 (1989). Immutable rules, by comparison, are those rules that “parties cannot change by contractual agreement.” Id. While these terms usually refer to the Uniform Commercial Code, they demonstrate the principle that some rules may be avoided by contract while others may not.
When a law is subject to revocation or amendment by the Legislature, can it really be said to be immutable? That's a pretty strong word. That the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is immutable. Nobody can change that. Unless you live on Venus.