Final answer:
A plaintiff will be discouraged from engaging in future illegal contracts as the legal system leaves them without recourse for losses resulting from an illegal bargain, promoting lawful conduct.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of illegal contracts, it is essential to understand that such agreements are not enforceable in court. When a plaintiff suffers a loss due to an illegal bargain, the legal system typically leaves them without recourse because the contract itself is void ab initio, meaning it was never legally valid from the outset. A vital purpose of this approach is deterrence. Deterrence is aimed at discouraging both parties from engaging in illegal transactions.
One could say the plaintiff would be discouraged from entering into similar illegal bargains in the future, rather than being 'exempted' which carries a different legal connotation. This discouragement is not just a moral but a practical consequence following an illegal agreement. The judiciary seeks to promote lawful conduct and employment relationships by preventing both enforcement of the illegal contract and any restitution for losses incurred due to engaging in such contracts.
The historical reference to formerly enslaved individuals and debt bondage illustrates how oppressive contractual terms, or lack thereof, can perpetuate a cycle of servitude and is a prime example why courts do not honor contracts that go against public policy or are inherently illegal.