Contract Rights and Remedies, and the Divergence between Law and Morality
Ratio Juris 21 (2):194-211 (2008)
| Abstract | There is an ongoing debate in the philosophical and jurisprudential literature regarding the nature and possibility of Contract theory. On one hand are those who argue (or assume) that there is, or should be, a single, general, universal theory of Contract Law, one applicable to all jurisdictions and all times. On the other hand are those who assert that Contract theory should be localized to particular times and places, perhaps even with different theories for different types of agreements. This article considers one facet of this debate: evaluating the relevance of the fact that the remedies available for breach of contract can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another. This wide variation in remedies for breach of a (contractual) promise is one central difference between promises in morality and enforceable agreements in law. The article asserts that variation of remedies strongly supports the conclusion that there is (and can be) no general, universal theory of Contract Law. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBrian Bix (2010). Contracts. In Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (eds.), The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.
B. I. X. H. (2008). Contract Rights and Remedies, and the Divergence Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 21 (2):194-211.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads26 ( #48,417 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
