FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1548178634> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1548178634 abstract "Correspondence accounts of the relationship between contract and promise hold either that contract law is justified to the extent it enforces a corresponding moral responsibility for a promise or unjustified to the extent it undermines promissory morality by refusing to enforce a corresponding moral responsibility for a promise. In this Article, I claim that contract scholars have mistakenly presumed that they can assess the correspondence between contract and promise without first providing a theory of self-imposed moral responsibility that explains and justifies the promise principle. I argue that any plausible theory of self-imposed moral responsibility is inconsistent with a strong correspondence account, which would impose legal liability for all promises, including promises intended not to be legally enforceable. To illustrate the dependence of correspondence accounts of contract law on a theory of self-imposed moral responsibility, I demonstrate how a “personal sovereignty” account of individual autonomy - one of the most familiar and intuitive theories of self-imposed moral responsibility - explains how and why, contrary to existing correspondence theories, promissory responsibility corresponds to the objective theory of intent. I then use the personal sovereignty account to demonstrate why a theory of self-imposed moral responsibility is necessary to determine whether contract remedies correspond to the remedial moral rights and duties that attach to violations of promissory responsibilities. I argue that the personal sovereignty account explains how and why promissory morality corresponds to most remedial contract doctrines, including the bar against mandatory punitive damages, the foreseeability limitation on consequential damages, the mitigation doctrine, and expectation damages, the paradigm example of a contract doctrine alleged to conflict with promissory morality. Finally, I argue that personal sovereignty also explains and justifies the doctrines of consideration and promissory estoppel. Correspondence theorists, therefore, can defend their critiques of contract law only by rejecting the personal sovereignty theory of self-imposed moral responsibility, defending an alternative theory, and explaining why any resulting divergence between contract law and its requirements is objectionable. Absent such a theory, correspondence accounts of contract law have no foundation." @default.
• W1548178634 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1548178634 creator A5056551168 @default.
• W1548178634 date "2009-11-01" @default.
• W1548178634 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1548178634 title "The Correspondence of Contract and Promise" @default.
• W1548178634 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1548178634 type Work @default.
• W1548178634 sameAs 1548178634 @default.
• W1548178634 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1548178634 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1548178634 hasAuthorship W1548178634A5056551168 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C111476811 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C186229450 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C200113983 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C65414064 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C111476811 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C162324750 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C17744445 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C186229450 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C190253527 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C199539241 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C200113983 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C2776211767 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C2777381055 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C65414064 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C83645499 @default.
• W1548178634 hasConceptScore W1548178634C94625758 @default.
• W1548178634 hasLocation W15481786341 @default.
• W1548178634 hasOpenAccess W1548178634 @default.
• W1548178634 hasPrimaryLocation W15481786341 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W1566444543 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W1979929398 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2120675656 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2121902626 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2146912928 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2204440036 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2236471379 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2252553894 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2268222090 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2288873898 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2469093111 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2969451865 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W2989962628 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3095983326 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3122381830 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3124326611 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3125583048 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3125862001 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3124694700 @default.
• W1548178634 hasRelatedWork W3125690635 @default.
• W1548178634 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1548178634 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1548178634 magId "1548178634" @default.
• W1548178634 workType "article" @default.