FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3023193249> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3023193249 abstract "The promise principle and its roots in a certain type of morality of individual obligation, which play the central role in Charles Fried‘s vision of Contract law, have importantly contributed to rescuing Contract law from absorption into Tort law and from the imposition of externally imposed standards that are collective in origin. It makes a mammoth contribution to alerting us to the tyranny of interference with individual self-determination. However, this essay questions whether a promise centered system derived from a moral philosophy of promising (without an observable and testable foundation in reality) and geared to internal individual obligation and duty can provide the basis on which the public law can decide the hard cases in contract law. First, the promise-sufficient principle won‘t help when the promises are incomplete. Second, this essay hypothesizes that there is an evolutionary trend toward efficient social contracts (or institutions of any kind), and therefore, if different communities at different times, using the latitude that our cultural genetic make up allow, choose to veer away from that trend, they will suffer by comparison with communities that do not. It is as if they are competing. In understanding what contract law should look like normatively, we must move beyond the purported internally reflective, a priori processes of individual will and understand, through casual and formal empirics and comparisons among economies, the background of how parties‘ externally expressed natural impulses act to coordinate on social problems in the games of life. The law should look to how parties act to coordinate through exchange and produce improving welfare when they construct contracts and the rules of contractual enforcement. In that way, contract law will develop around, and not in a manner at odds with, naturalistic sources for normative principles, ones that are consonant with the parties‘ own expressions. Page 2 The Promise Principle and Contract Interpretation The Promise Principle and Contract Interpretation: Juliet P. Kostritsky † For Charles Fried the promise principle unifies the law of Contract and provides its moral foundation. 1 According to Fried, the promise principle promotes freedom and autonomy because it ties contractual obligation to ―self-imposed‖ commitments. 2 By enforcing promises, Contract law advances individual freedom. 3 I will explore why Fried is drawn to the promise and self-imposed obligation as the central organizing elements of contract law, what Fried means by morality, and the connection between individual freedom, morality and contract law. I will explore these connections by tracing the origins of freedom, autonomy and morality back to Kant and other philosophical antecedents. Fried wants to theorize contract as involving a purely individual morality of promise-making and promise-keeping, which are values in themselves because they promote autonomy. They are self-binding through exercises of will. 4 Fried doesn‘t want this master autonomy purpose cluttered up with considerations of mere utility or efficiency, on the one hand, or distributive justice or fairness on the other. † Everett D. and Eugenia S. McCurdy Professor of Contract Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. I want to thank Professors Ronald J. Coffey, Peter M. Gerhart, Robert W. Gordon, Roy Kreitner and Saul Levmore. The author wishes to thank the Dean‘s summer research fund at Case Western Reserve University Law School which funded my research. Superb secretarial help from Eleanore Ettinger has been invaluable in this and other projects over 26 years. 1 CHARLES FRIED, CONTRACT AS PROMISE 1 (1981) 2 Id. at 3 Id. at 2. 4 To the extent that Professor Fried endorses an idea of a contract as a self-imposed obligation, he seems to suggest that promises are self-binding through the exercise of a person‘s will. In some way, this notion may be thought to be traceable to Immanuel Kant and Professor Fried cites Kant in his footnotes. However, Kant himself seemed to go out of his way to separate the personal (direct, internal) rulemaking for one‘s own behavior and public positive law. For example, Kant says: ―Although the Promiser, therefore, thought—as may easily be supposed—that he could not be bound by his Promise in any case, if he rued‘ it before it was actually carried out, yet the Court assumes that he ought expressly to have reserved this condition if such was his mind; and if he did not make such an express reservation, it will be held that he can be compelled to implement his Promise. And this Principle is assumed by the Court, because the administration of Justice would otherwise be endlessly impeded, or even made entirely impossible.‖ In this excerpt, Kant contradicts the promise‘s force as a function of the promisor‘s internal will. It matters not what his internal will was. What Kant thinks matters for the public law is he expressed will (not inner will) and the acceptance (delivery in gift law). Thus, to the extent that Professor Fried constructs the idea of a self imposed contractual obligation out of an internal will, that idea does not seem traceable to Kant. What this essay will focus on is whether the internal will should be the governing principle of Contract and whether it explains the doctrines. The Promise Principle and Contract Interpretation Page 3 I will then argue that because morality and the promise principle are oriented toward individual, ―self-created‖ obligation 5 they should not guide positive laws. A focus on individually assumed obligations by itself would not explain why contractual institutions which enforce these promises are valuable by ―foster[ing] trust‖ 6 nor provide solutions to difficult Contracts" @default.
• W3023193249 created "2020-05-13" @default.
• W3023193249 creator A5049695702 @default.
• W3023193249 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W3023193249 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3023193249 title "The Promise Principle and Contract Interpretation" @default.
• W3023193249 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W3023193249 type Work @default.
• W3023193249 sameAs 3023193249 @default.
• W3023193249 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3023193249 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3023193249 hasAuthorship W3023193249A5049695702 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C162040827 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C177986884 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C200113983 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C2778447849 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C54726253 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C138885662 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C144024400 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C162040827 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C17744445 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C177986884 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C190253527 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C199539241 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C200113983 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C200635333 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C2777834853 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C2778447849 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C2779103253 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C41895202 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C527412718 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C54726253 @default.
• W3023193249 hasConceptScore W3023193249C94625758 @default.
• W3023193249 hasLocation W30231932491 @default.
• W3023193249 hasOpenAccess W3023193249 @default.
• W3023193249 hasPrimaryLocation W30231932491 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W1604244931 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W1865668259 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W1966820000 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W1992230854 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W1998680686 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W2260223238 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W2269198251 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W2494086387 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W2607019781 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W2968541210 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W305816477 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3121170849 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3123585907 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3123788856 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3124065664 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3125835095 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3153735829 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3164087710 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3195024204 @default.
• W3023193249 hasRelatedWork W3124994450 @default.
• W3023193249 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3023193249 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3023193249 magId "3023193249" @default.
• W3023193249 workType "article" @default.