Acknowledgements |
|
xiii | |
|
|
xv | |
|
|
xxv | |
Introduction |
|
xxvii | |
|
|
1 | (29) |
|
Debate 1 Does the law on offer and acceptance respect the parties' intentions? |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
A Subjective or Objective Approach? |
|
|
1 | (6) |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
|
9 | (5) |
|
Debate 2 How should the law resolve the `battle of the forms'? |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
The Traditional `Mirror Image' Approach |
|
|
15 | (3) |
|
Flexibility in Finding Contracts |
|
|
18 | (3) |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
Is Restitution the Solution? |
|
|
22 | (3) |
|
Contract, After All, Is Best? |
|
|
25 | (3) |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
2 Enforceability: Consideration, Intention and Estoppel |
|
|
30 | (44) |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Debate 1 Does the doctrine of consideration serve any useful purpose? |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Consideration: A Brief History |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
32 | (2) |
|
Gratuitous Promises in Commercial Law |
|
|
34 | (2) |
|
Gratuitous Promises in Private Life |
|
|
36 | (5) |
|
|
41 | (3) |
|
Conclusion: Consideration's Function |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 Should `intention to create legal relations' take over as the hallmark of enforceability? |
|
|
44 | (4) |
|
Debate 3 Should consideration be necessary to modify contracts? |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
|
48 | (4) |
|
What Is the Correct Policy Towards Contract Modification? |
|
|
52 | (6) |
|
Alternatives? Si-Debate 4: How does estoppel fit into contract law? |
|
|
58 | (2) |
|
|
60 | (3) |
|
|
63 | (4) |
|
Estoppel: A Sword or a Shield? |
|
|
67 | (2) |
|
|
69 | (3) |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
3 Standard Forms and Written Contracts |
|
|
74 | (33) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Debate 1 Is a signature really `agreement'? |
|
|
75 | (4) |
|
Debate 2 Can parties make written contracts exclusively `documentary'? |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
The Parol Evidence `Rule' |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
Entire Agreement Clauses: Party Autonomy |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
Non-reliance Clauses: Statutory Control |
|
|
82 | (4) |
|
Debate 3 Should `no oral modification' clauses be enforceable? |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
a Policy: Commercial Expectations |
|
|
87 | (3) |
|
b Principle: Freedom to Change One's Mind |
|
|
90 | (2) |
|
c Divergence from international consensus? |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
Debate 4 The use and abuse of commercial standard forms |
|
|
95 | (3) |
|
Debate 5 Consumer protection and standard forms |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
Why Do Consumers Need Protection? |
|
|
98 | (2) |
|
|
100 | (2) |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
4 Contractual Content: Terms and Their Meaning |
|
|
107 | (36) |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
Debate 1 How should contracts be interpreted? |
|
|
107 | (2) |
|
The Modern Approach: Context and Purpose |
|
|
109 | (3) |
|
Criticisms of the Contextual Approach |
|
|
112 | (4) |
|
|
116 | (3) |
|
Resolving the Text/Context Dispute? |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
Limiting the Context: Prior Negotiations |
|
|
120 | (3) |
|
Rectification and Interpretation |
|
|
123 | (2) |
|
Rectification: Objective or Subjective? |
|
|
125 | (3) |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 How should terms be implied into contracts? |
|
|
129 | (6) |
|
Default Rules: Terms Implied `by Law' |
|
|
135 | (4) |
|
Law and Economics: Efficient Default Rules |
|
|
139 | (3) |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
5 Misrepresentation and Mistake |
|
|
143 | (33) |
|
Misrepresentation: Some Controversies Outlined |
|
|
143 | (3) |
|
Debate 1 Should there be a general duty to disclose relevant information? |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (2) |
|
|
148 | (4) |
|
Encouraging the Production and Use of Valuable Information |
|
|
152 | (3) |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 Do we need `The Doctrine of Mistake'? |
|
|
156 | (1) |
|
|
157 | (3) |
|
|
160 | (5) |
|
|
165 | (5) |
|
Remedies for Common Mistake |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
|
171 | (4) |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
|
176 | (34) |
|
Debate 1 What is the basis of the doctrine of frustration? |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
Impossibility, Impracticability and Frustration of Purpose |
|
|
178 | (2) |
|
|
180 | (2) |
|
|
182 | (2) |
|
Economic Efficiency and the `Superior Risk Bearer' |
|
|
184 | (4) |
|
Debate 2 Do we need the doctrine of frustration? |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
|
189 | (5) |
|
|
194 | (2) |
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
Debate 3 Are the consequences of frustration too inflexible? |
|
|
198 | (1) |
|
Unjust Enrichment and the Act of 1943 |
|
|
199 | (4) |
|
|
203 | (3) |
|
|
206 | (2) |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
|
209 | (1) |
|
7 Inequality of Bargaining Power |
|
|
210 | (28) |
|
Debate 1 What is economic duress? |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
The Busts of the Doctrine: `Vitiated Consent' or `Wrongful Threats'? |
|
|
210 | (3) |
|
Was the Claimant Coerced? |
|
|
213 | (2) |
|
Were the Threats `Illegitimate'? |
|
|
215 | (5) |
|
Are Threats to Breach a Contract `Illegitimate'? |
|
|
220 | (3) |
|
Debate 2 The nature of undue influence and unconscionability |
|
|
223 | (1) |
|
The Basis of Undue Influence |
|
|
223 | (5) |
|
|
228 | (2) |
|
Debate 3 A general principle of contract unfairness? |
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
A `General Judicial Power to Modify Highly Unreasonable Contracts'? |
|
|
230 | (2) |
|
|
232 | (3) |
|
|
235 | (2) |
|
|
237 | (1) |
|
|
238 | (32) |
|
|
238 | (1) |
|
Debate 1 When should termination be allowed in response to breach of contract? |
|
|
239 | (1) |
|
When Is Termination Available as a Matter of Law? |
|
|
240 | (4) |
|
Controlling Termination: Rules of Law |
|
|
244 | (4) |
|
Controlling Termination: Contract Interpretation |
|
|
248 | (2) |
|
|
250 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 Should penalty clauses be allowed? |
|
|
251 | (1) |
|
|
252 | (1) |
|
`Supra-Compensatory' Clauses |
|
|
253 | (4) |
|
Economic Analysis of Penalties |
|
|
257 | (3) |
|
The Post-Cavendish Law: `Legitimate Interest' and `Proportionality' |
|
|
260 | (7) |
|
|
267 | (1) |
|
|
268 | (2) |
|
9 Judicial Remedies: Performance, Compensation and Remoteness |
|
|
270 | (53) |
|
|
270 | (2) |
|
Debate 1 How far should contract remedies enforce performance? |
|
|
272 | (1) |
|
|
273 | (3) |
|
Holmes and Contractual Rights |
|
|
276 | (5) |
|
|
281 | (2) |
|
Efficient Breach: Critique |
|
|
283 | (4) |
|
|
287 | (4) |
|
|
291 | (12) |
|
Deterring Breach: Exemplary Damages and Disgorgement of Profits |
|
|
303 | (5) |
|
|
308 | (4) |
|
Debate 2 How should liability for consequential loss be limited (`remoteness')? |
|
|
312 | (1) |
|
`Assumption of Responsibility' or `External Rule of Law'? |
|
|
313 | (6) |
|
Remoteness of Damage and Economic Efficiency |
|
|
319 | (2) |
|
|
321 | (2) |
Further Reading |
|
323 | (1) |
Appendix: Third Parties |
|
324 | (1) |
Index |
|
325 | |