Two news stories receiving attention here in Australia serve to remind us that the role of contract law in business can often be overstated.

The first occurred when rugby star Sonny Bill Williams decided to breach his 5-year contract with the Canterbury Bulldogs to sign on with French club Toulon. Sure, the Bulldogs were granted an injunction, but the move will prove futile if Williams is happy to be in contempt of court (in NSW) from the safety of the Cote d’Azur. In this instance, the most sensible and personally beneficial option for Williams was simply to act outside of the law.

The second involved a PR catastrophe by Fitness First, when it decided to sue a member for $200 after she discontinued her membership with medical problems. Sure, this was a breach of contract, and sure, Fitness First was entitled to sue, but if it the negative publicity is going to undermine an expensive Olympic sponsorship campaign, then what’s the point?

In the Sonny Bill case, the legally solid contract was worth bupkis when one of the parties decided to breach it. In the Fitness First case, the contract enabled only a Pyrrhic victory. In both, the significance of the law of contract within the overall business environment was given too much credence.

The lesson for those in business:

Lawyers are only good at answering legal questions.

I don’t mean questions of a legal nature, or those that have a legal aspect. I mean that you should only trust lawyers with purely legal questions.

It may be tempting to outsource legally-relevant business decisions to your lawyers. However, the experience from these two cases reminds us to vigilantly distinguish between business expertise and legal expertise.