Some scholars defend the contract law’s ban on punitive damage awards on the grounds that breach of contract, in itself, is not morally wrong. In this Article, I offer two responses. First, I refute one prevalent argument of Steven Shavell’s in support of this view. Shavell argues that contractual breach is not immoral in those cases in which the legal regime would offer expectation damages because the contracting parties would not have agreed to require performance had they explicitly deliberated about the circumstances occasioning the breach. I criticize his argument for failing to justify this hypothetical-contract approach and, in any case, for failing to apply the approach properly. Second, I provide some arguments for the general default interpretation that, unless explicitly delineated otherwise, a commitment to perform, morally, entails a commitment to perform rather than a commitment to perform or pay.
June 2009 Vol. 107 No. 8 THE REVIEW
Could Breach of Contract Be Immoral?
//
VIEW PDF
PAST ISSUES
of The Review
The Online Companion
CURRENT FEATURES
RESPONSES
& Other Current Events
What's In A Name? A Brief Study of Legal Aptonyms
Law and literature ranges wide. Scholars use Shakespeare to illuminate issues of justice, Dickens to understand...Rethinking Reporter's Privilege
Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...Standing's Expected Value
This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing
The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach
Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List