The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does.

My issue with it is the inconsistency. Clearly we are a society recognize that contracts can and will be used abusively, but we only act on that sometimes.

Two regular people entering a room to sign a prenup are making a deal on something that should be upheld. A super rich guy bringing a teenage foreign girl into a room with his 6 lawyers and a 200 page document is something that is not quite as kosher and I think we can all recognize it as a case where the girl, despite having all the agency and responsibility stemming from it, is being screwed. Or guy even, as I'm sure ultra rich homos have done similar.

But that's what the entertainment industry does. Which is telling us that Corporations (who make the majority of contracts) are above the law and questioning, while any Contract us plebs make is under max scrutiny and easily tossed aside for the minorest of infractions. Obvious revelation of course, but not one I'll hold against Dave for falling on the wrong side of.