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
How the Gun-Free School Zones Act Saved the Individual Mandate
For all the drama surrounding the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate provision...Citing Orin Kerr from MLR Volume 102, the Court addresses the controversy over GPS trackers and the Fourth Amendment
The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Jones, on GPS trackers and the Fourth Amendment, cited...Inside Agency Preemption
A subtle shift has taken place in the mechanics of preemption, the doctrine that determines when federal...Criminal Sanctions in the Defense of the Innocent
Under the formal rules of criminal procedure, fact finders are required to apply a uniform standard...On Strict Liability Crimes: Preserving a Moral Framework for Criminal Intent in an Intent-Free Moral World
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List