powers or one not expressly authorized by law. Id. at 882. “Due to the fact that municipalities represent the public, the courts unhesitatingly should enforce compliance with all mandatory provisions of the statutes intended to protect municipalities and their inhabitants.” St. Charles Cty. v. A Joint Bd. Or Comm’n, 184 S.W.3d 161, 165 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). Thus, a contract which fails to satisfy any one of the mandatory requirements described in section 432.070 is “outside the object of its creation ... and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Legislature,” and “is not voidable only, but wholly void, and of no legal effect.” Id. at 166 (quoting Donovan, 175 S.W.2d at 879); see also Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699, 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (<HOLDING>). City’s motion for summary judgment did not
holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable holding that irss failure to comply with seizure and sale provisions of section 6335 renders tax sales voidable at taxpayers option rather than void as matter of law recognizing that acts made in violation of statutory authority are void holding that a contract made in violation of section 432070 is void rather than voidable holding that contract termination is defense that contract is voidable not void and that such defense is not available against thirdparty beneficiary benefit fund under  515 of erisa