Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:39:42.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prospects for pluralism in contract theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Zhong Xing Tan Open the ORCID record for Zhong Xing Tan [Opens in a new window]
Zhong Xing Tan*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore, Singapore
*
*Author e-mail: lawtzx@nus.edu.sg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the promise of pluralism in the realm of contract law. I begin by identifying and rejecting conceptual strategies adopted by monistic and dualistic approaches. Turning towards pluralism, I evaluate three versions in contemporary literature: pluralism across contracting spheres and types, pluralism through consensus and convergence, and pluralism through localised values-balancing and practical reasoning. I suggest embracing some pluralism about contract pluralism, by using these models to construct a framework of ‘meta-pluralism’, where at the macro-level, we are concerned with plural spheres of contracting activity; at the meso-level, a variety of trans-substantive interpretive concepts that receive some measure of juristic consensus; and at the micro-level, practical reasoning through particularistic analysis of case-specific considerations. I illustrate the meta-pluralistic framework through a case study on the varieties of specific performance, and explain how the proposed pluralistic framework enriches our understanding of the nature of contract.

Keywords

contract lawlegal theorypluralism
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 547 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am particularly grateful to Andrew Halpin, Jane Bestor, and both anonymous reviewers for most insightful comments on earlier drafts, as well as to audiences at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore and Harvard Law School. Work on this paper was also supported with a grant from the National University of Singapore (R-241-000-174-133). The usual caveats apply.

References

1 Dworkin, R Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2011) pp 5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Saprai, P Contract Law Without Foundations: Toward a Republican Theory of Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) ch 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Fried, C Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shiffrin, SV ‘The divergence of contract and promise’ (2007) 120 Harvard Law Review 708Google Scholar.

4 Weinrib, EJ The Idea of Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, rev edn, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Shavell, S and Kaplow, L Fairness versus Welfare (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

6 Miller, MR ‘Party sophistication value pluralism in contract’ (2013) 29 Touro Law Review 659Google Scholar at 662.

7 Kreitner, R ‘On the new pluralism in contract theory’ (2012) 45 Suffolk University Law Review 915Google Scholar at 923.

8 Ibid, at 922.

9 Oman, N ‘Unity and pluralism in contract law’ (2005) 103 Michigan Law Review 1483Google Scholar at 1498.

10 Trakman, L ‘Pluralism in contract law’ (2010) 58 Buffalo Law Review 1031Google Scholar at 1093.

11 Chen-Wishart, M ‘The nature of vitiating factors in contract law’ in Klass, G et al. (eds) Philosophical Foundations of Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

12 Burton, SJ ‘Normative legal theories: the case for pluralism and balancing’ (2013) 98 Iowa Law Review 535Google Scholar.

13 Kreitner, above n 7, at 927–932.

14 I am indebted to one anonymous reviewer for raising the issues discussed in this section.

15 C Webb ‘Contract as fact and as reason’ in Klass, above n 11, p 135.

16 See TM Scanlon Being Realistic about Reasons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

17 E Anderson Value in Ethics and Economics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993) p 1.

18 Burton, above 12, at 554.

19 Ibid, at 551.

20 H Collins Regulating Contracts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) p 32.

21 CR Sunstein ‘Problems with rules’ (1995) 83 California Law Review 956.

22 See eg J Gava ‘Can contract law be justified on economics grounds?’ (2006) The University of Queensland Law Journal 253.

23 J Varuhas ‘The socialisation of private law: balancing private right and public good’ 137 (2021) Law Quarterly Review 141 at 142.

24 For a representative definition, see W Twining General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) pp 116–119.

25 V Mak Legal Pluralism in European Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).

26 Ibid, chs 6–9.

27 Ibid, ch 5.

28 See SA Smith Contract Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) pp 3–6.

29 Webb, above n 15, pp 137–138.

30 JN Adams and R Brownsword ‘The ideologies of contract’ (1987) 7 LS 205.

31 J Gardner Torts and Other Wrongs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) p 28.

32 See Saprai, above n 2, ch 3.

33 Fried, above n 3, p 17.

34 Saprai, above n 2, p 36.

35 Ibid, p 37.

36 Ibid.

37 Fried, C ‘The convergence of contract and promise’ (2007) 120 Harvard Law Review Forum 1Google Scholar at 8–9.

38 See A Burrows A Restatement of the English Law of Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) p 131, summarising the case law.

39 See J Morgan ‘Smuggling mitigation into White & Carter v McGregor: time to come clean?’ [2015] LMCLQ 575.

40 [1962] AC 413.

41 Ibid, at 431.

42 Saprai, above n 2, pp 27, 33.

43 Chen-Wishart, above n 11, p 297.

44 See discussion of the literature in A Robertson ‘The limits of voluntariness in contract’ (2005) 29 Melbourne University Law Review 179.

45 Chen-Wishart, above n 11, p 317.

46 Burrows, above n 38, pp 209–211, summarising the case law.

47 Fried, above n 3, ch 7.

48 See discussion of the literature in S Scheffler ‘Distributive justice, the basic structure and the place of private law’ (2015) 35 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 213.

49 HLA Hart The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1994) p 81.

50 See H Dagan and M Heller ‘Why autonomy must be contract's ultimate value’ (2019) 20 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 148.

51 A Brudner The Unity of the Common Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2013) p 162.

52 Ibid, p 4.

53 D Kennedy ‘Form and substance in private law adjudication’ (1976) 89 Harvard Law Review 1685.

54 Brudner, above n 51, pp 170–172.

55 Ibid, pp 172–173.

56 Ibid, p 174.

57 Ibid, p 228.

58 J Gardner ‘The purity and priority of private law’ (1996) 46 University of Toronto Law Journal 459 at 481.

59 Brudner, above n 51, p 227.

60 Ibid, p 193.

61 W Lucy ‘The common law according to Hegel’ (1997) 4 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 685 at 692–694.

62 P Gabel and D Kennedy ‘Roll over Beethoven’ (1984) 36 Stanford Law Review 1.

63 Kennedy, above n 53, at 1685.

64 Ibid, at 1713–1722.

65 Ibid, at 1731–1737.

66 Ibid, at 1740.

67 Ibid, at 1767.

68 Ibid, at 1774–1778.

69 [2016] 3 WLR 399.

70 Ibid, at [101].

71 For instance the notorious ‘reliance’ principle in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, see discussion in Patel, above n 69, at [237].

72 See A Burrows ‘Illegality after Patel v Mirza’ (2017) 70 Current Legal Problems 55.

73 Gabel and Kennedy, above n 62, at 15–16.

74 Ibid, at 16.

75 Ibid, at 15.

76 Ibid, at 48.

77 M Krygier ‘Critical legal studies and social theory – a response to Alan Hunt’ (1987) 7 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 at 29.

78 D Meyerson ‘Fundamental contradictions in critical legal studies’ (1991) 11 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 439 at 444–445.

79 See A Schwartz and RE Scott ‘Contract theory and the limits of contract law’ (2003) 113 Yale Law Journal 541.

80 Kreitner, above n 7, at 920.

81 H Dagan and M Heller The Choice Theory of Contracts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

82 Ibid, p 76.

83 Ibid, p 103 (emphasis in original).

84 Ibid, chs 5–6.

85 Ibid, p 103.

86 Ibid, pp 109–110.

87 Ibid, p 11.

88 D Markovits and A Schwartz ‘Plural values in contract law: theory and implementation’ (2019) 20 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 571 at 576.

89 Ibid, at 588 (emphasis in original).

90 LL Fuller The Morality of Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964).

91 This being the most recent version, the previous of which was the INCOTERMS 2010 rules.

92 Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v TD Bailey, Sons & Co [1940] 3 All ER 60.

93 Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero, The Albazero [1977] AC 774 at 809.

94 CR Sunstein ‘Incompletely theorized agreements’ (1995) 108 Harvard Law Review 1733 at 1740–1741.

95 Ibid, at 1736–1740.

96 Burton, above n 12, at 555.

97 Sunstein, above n 94, at 1748–1749.

98 J Rawls Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).

99 Ibid, p 391.

100 C Bridgeman ‘Liberalism and freedom from the promise theory of contract’ (2004) 67 MLR 684 at 698.

101 TW Merrill and HE Smith ‘The morality of property’ (2007) 48 William & Mary Law Review 1849 at 1856.

102 Lumley v Gye (1853) 118 ER 749.

103 See discussion in R Bagshaw ‘Inducing breach of contract’ in J Horder (ed) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

104 R Craswell ‘Instrumental theories of compensation: a survey’ (2003) 40 San Diego Law Review 1135 at 1139–1140.

105 Ibid, at 1137.

106 See EA Posner ‘Economic analysis of contract law after three decades: success or failure?’ (2003) 112 Yale Law Journal 829.

107 J Habermas ‘Reconciliation through the public use of reason: remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism’ (1995) 92 Journal of Philosophy 109 at 110.

108 E Wingenbach ‘Unjust context: the priority of stability in Rawls's contextualized theory of justice’ (1999) 43 American Journal of Political Science 213 at 214.

109 R Dworkin Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) pp 255–266.

110 Collins, above n 20, p 33.

111 [1979] 1 All ER 972.

112 Collins, above n 20, pp 39–40.

113 Saprai, above n 2, p 69.

114 Ibid.

115 (1889) 115 NY 506.

116 Saprai, above n 2, pp 49–50.

117 Ibid, p 69.

118 See CR Sunstein ‘Incommensurability and valuation in law’ (1994) 92 Michigan Law Review 779; R Chang ‘Value incomparability and incommensurability’ in I Hirose and J Olson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

119 Chang, above n 118, p 205.

120 Sunstein, above n 118, at 798.

121 Chang, above n 118, p 207.

122 Ibid, p 210.

123 Thorsten Nordenfelt v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company, Ltd [1894] AC 535, 565; see further Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32.

124 SA Smith ‘Future freedom and freedom of contract’ (1996) 59 MLR 167.

125 SA Smith ‘Reconstructing restraint of trade’ (1995) 15 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 565.

126 Sunstein, above n 118, at 860.

127 See D Rueschemeyer Usable Theory: Analytical Tools for Social and Political Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009) ch 2.

128 See M Walzer Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983).

129 TD Rakoff ‘The implied terms of contracts: of “default rules” and “situation-sense”’ in J Beatson and D Friedmann (eds) Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) p 214.

130 H Dagan and M Heller ‘Freedom, choice, and contracts’ (2019) 20 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 595 at 628 (emphasis in original).

131 See S Balganesh and G Parchomovsky ‘Structure and value in the common law’ (2015) 5 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1241.

132 Ibid, at 1247.

133 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2016] AC 1172 at [29].

134 See S Rowan ‘The “legitimate interest in performance” in the law on penalties’ (2019) 78 CLJ 148.

135 CJ Goetz and RE Scott ‘The mitigation principle: toward a general theory of contractual obligation’ (1983) 69 Virginia Law Review 967.

136 Morgan, above n 39, at 584.

137 See D Campbell ‘The relational constitution of remedy: co-operation as the implicit second principle of remedies for breach of contract’ (2005) 11 Texas Wesleyan Law Review 455.

138 See text to above n 41.

139 For non-delivery, see Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 51(3), and for non-acceptance, s 50(3).

140 Ruxley Electronics and Construction v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 at 361.

141 M Radin ‘Property and personhood’ (1982) 34 Stanford Law Review 957.

142 SR Gordon et al ‘May you litigate in interesting times: specific performance, mitigation, and valuation issues in a rising (or falling) market’ (2018) 56 Alberta Law Review 367 at 377.

143 Burrows, A Remedies for Torts, Breach of Contract, and Equitable Wrongs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2019) p 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 I am grateful to the reviewers for their comments on this part of the analysis.

145 Shiffrin, above n 3, at 722.

146 See Rawls, J and Kelly, EI (eds) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001) pp 42–43Google Scholar.

147 To appropriate McDowell's felicitous phrase: see McDowell, J, Mind and World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1996) p 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 Burrows, above n 38, p 149.

149 Sudbrook v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444 at 478; see further Davies, PS ‘Being specific about specific performance’ (2018) 4 Conveyancer 324Google Scholar.

150 Paramadevan v Semelhago [1996] 2 SCR 415 at [21].

151 See 904060 Ontario Ltd v 529566 Ontario Ltd (1999) 89 OTC 112 at [14]; Raymond v Raymond Estate 2011 SKCA 58 at [15].

152 See Covlin v Minhas 2009 ABCA 404; 532782 BC Inc v Republic Financial Ltd 2001 ABQB 581; cf Harle v 101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd 2014 SKCA 6.

153 Patel v Ali [1984] Ch 283.

154 Beale, H (ed) Chitty on Contracts (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 32nd edn, 2015)Google Scholar para 27-048.

155 Burrows, above n 38, p 23.

156 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 236.

157 De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 45 Ch D 430 at 438.

158 Chen-Wishart, M ‘Specific performance and change of mind’ in Virgo, G and Worthington, S (eds) Commercial Remedies: Resolving Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) pp 116, 121Google Scholar.

159 Brodie, D ‘Specific performance and employment contracts’ (1998) 27 Industrial Law Journal 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 44.

160 Saprai, above n 2, p 139.

161 See eg Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2014] ICR 194; Stevens v University of Birmingham [2016] 4 All ER 258; Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundations Trust [2012] 2 AC 22.

162 West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2014] ICR 194.

163 Irani v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority [1985] ICR 590.

164 Ryan v Mutual Tontine Association [1898] 1 Ch 116.

165 Giles & Co Ltd v Morris [1972] 1 WLR 307 at 318.

166 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1 at 12.

167 Ibid, at 13.

168 See Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold Ltd [1999] Ch 64 at 73.

169 Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 19(3)(b) and s (4)(a) read with s 23 in the case of goods; s 42(2)(a) read with s 43 in the case of digital content.

170 Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 54(3)(a) read with s 55.

171 Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 58(2).

172 A Schwartz ‘The case for specific performance’ (1979) 89 Yale Law Journal 271 at 287.

173 Joined cases C-65/09 and C-87/09, Gebr Weber GmbH v Wittmer and Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH [2011] WLR(D) 210 at [68], [71].

174 Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 23(3)(b) and s 23(4).

175 Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 43(3)(b) and s 43(4).

176 See Woodroffe, G et al. Woodroffe & Lowe Consumer Law and Practice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 10th edn, 2016) p 143Google Scholar.

177 Shiffrin, above n 3, at 724.

178 Holmes, OW ‘The path of the law’ (1897) 10 Harvard Law ReviewGoogle Scholar at 995.

179 Markovits, D and Schwartz, A ‘The myth of efficient breach: new defences of the expectation interest’ (2011) 97 Virginia Law Review 1939Google Scholar.

180 Ibid, at 1950–1952.

181 Lipshaw, JM ‘Contract as meaning: an introduction to “contract as promise at 30”’ (2012) 45 Suffolk University Law Review 601Google Scholar at 615.

182 Campbell, D and Harris, D ‘In defence of breach: a critique of restitution and the performance interest’ (2002) 22 Legal Studies 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 218.

183 See Klass, G ‘To perform or pay damages’ (2012) 98 Virginia Law Review 143Google Scholar at 146–147.

184 See Morris-Garner and Another v One Step (Support) Ltd [2019] AC 649 at [95].

185 See the literature review in Barker, K ‘“Damages without loss”: can Hohfeld help?’ (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

186 Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655 at [220]–[225].

187 Eliot, G Middlemarch (London: Penguin, 2003) p 17Google Scholar.

188 See Atiyah, PS Pragmatism and Theory in English Law (The Hamlyn Lectures) (London: Stevens and Sons, 1987) p 6Google Scholar.