Objectivity and subjectivity in contract law: A copernican response to professor Shiffrin
| Abstract | This is a response to Seana Shiffrin's recent and important contribution to the continuing debate whether there is a universal moral or economic truth at the heart of contract law. Her most significant advance toward a general theory of promise and contract is not, however, her analysis of the divergence of morality and contract, but instead her identification of the critical moment at which the interposition of the public in a private matter occurs or is contemplated. This essay carries that theme forward, suggesting that a universal justification for contract law is not possible because the law, by its very nature, objectifies (publicly or with that implicit threat) what was heretofore a private relationship. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesJohn Arthur & William H. Shaw (eds.) (2010). Readings in the Philosophy of Law. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Thomas Donaldson (1990). Social Contracts and Corporations: A Reply to Hodapp. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (2):133 - 137.
Brian Bix (2008). Contract Rights and Remedies, and the Divergence Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 21 (2):194-211.
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 downloads10 ( #106,438 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
