Post by Sapphire Capital on Dec 13, 2008 0:09:34 GMT 4
In (Partial) Defense of
Robert E. Scott
Columbia University - Columbia Law School
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 107, 2009
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 341
Abstract:
Many scholars believe that notions of fault should and do pervade contract doctrine. Notwithstanding the normative and positive arguments in favor of a fault-based analysis of particular contract doctrines, I argue that contract liability is strict liability at its core. This core regime is based on two key prongs: (1) the promisor is liable to the promisee for breach, and that liability is unaffected by the promisor's exercise of due care or failure to take efficient precautions; and (2) the promisor's liability is unaffected by the fact that the promisee, prior to the breach, has failed to take cost-effective precautions to reduce the consequences of non-performance. I offer two complementary normative justifications for contract law's stubborn resistance to consider fault in either of these instances. First, I argue that there are unappreciated ways in which courts' adherence to strict liability doctrine at the core of contract reduces contracting costs. In addition, I argue that a strict liability core best supports parties' efforts to access informal or relational modes of contracting, especially where key information is unverifiable.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1304239_code213269.pdf?abstractid=1304239&mirid=2
Strict Liability in ContractRobert E. Scott
Columbia University - Columbia Law School
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 107, 2009
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 341
Abstract:
Many scholars believe that notions of fault should and do pervade contract doctrine. Notwithstanding the normative and positive arguments in favor of a fault-based analysis of particular contract doctrines, I argue that contract liability is strict liability at its core. This core regime is based on two key prongs: (1) the promisor is liable to the promisee for breach, and that liability is unaffected by the promisor's exercise of due care or failure to take efficient precautions; and (2) the promisor's liability is unaffected by the fact that the promisee, prior to the breach, has failed to take cost-effective precautions to reduce the consequences of non-performance. I offer two complementary normative justifications for contract law's stubborn resistance to consider fault in either of these instances. First, I argue that there are unappreciated ways in which courts' adherence to strict liability doctrine at the core of contract reduces contracting costs. In addition, I argue that a strict liability core best supports parties' efforts to access informal or relational modes of contracting, especially where key information is unverifiable.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1304239_code213269.pdf?abstractid=1304239&mirid=2