[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.18 This conception is both a bet-ter account of judicial practice, and a way to improve on that practice byridding it of those commitments that have the effect of limiting contract sfairness-promoting, or redistributive potential.19 Contract is a conception,and thus, it may be reconceived, or reimagined.A prod to our imagination,and a reminder that the current conception is neither timeless nor transcen-dent, is the fact that only a century and a half ago, contract was conceivedof quite differently.The transformation of contract is tied to complex eco-nomic and social changes, but its technical doctrinal manifestation is visiblein the work of classical theorists.My claim here has been that what classicalGilmore, The Death of Contract 24 (2d ed.1995).Gilmore s history and theory have become objects ofroutine disparagement, but Gilmore s first calling was literary criticism, and his insights into the Nietzs-chean mode by which the classical interpretation of contract became dominant, and its violence in oust-ing previously popular interpretations of contract, remain salient.By subjecting the cases to a rereading,and by emphasizing how controversial the classical interpretations and classifications of the cases werewhen they appeared, Gilmore reminds us of the creative power of classical theorizing.18.One of the important parts of such a view of contract would be some account of how potential regu-lation works, not only when the potential is exercised, but also when it remains in the shadows, since therefusal of the state to exercise power over a given relationship allows whoever wields power within therelationship to violate the relationship s norms with impunity.19.At least one scholar has made the case that the best reading of the history of contract should placethe fairness of distribution at its center, while retaining the focus on promise enforcement.See JamesGordley, Enforcing Promises, 83 Cal.L.Rev.547, 548 (1995). conclusion: undermining the metaphysics of contract 237contract theory undertook piecemeal, it achieved wholesale.The rhetoricalframework that made enforcing promises into the centerpiece of contractretains its power today, and perhaps is the major factor limiting contract stransformative potential. IndexAcquisitive individuality, 100, 147, 150 Bank of Ettrick v.Emberson, 115nAddison, C.G., 33n, 38f Beale, Joseph Henry, 27, 33n, 40ffAdequacy of consideration, 29, 77, 140n, 233 Beaver v.Beaver, 57fAgency, 5n, 22f, 42, 44, 70n, 213n.See also Benjamin, Walter, 152Contract types Bensel, Richard Franklin, 4nAlbers v.Lamson, 123f, 151n Benson, Peter, 2n, 72n, 192f, 224nAnson, William, R., 39n, 41n, 202n Bernstein, Lisa, 193fAnticipatory breach of contract, 107 Bishop, Joel Prentiss, 215fAntigambling discourse, 100 104, 119ff, 124, Bloom, Harold, 227, 235139ff, 148, 159 Board of Trade of Chicago v.Christie Grain andAntigaming statutes, 97n, 108 21 passim Stock Co., 121f, 150n, 157nArnold, Thurman, 225f Bourdieu, Pierre, 92fAshton, John, 126 30 passim Bradford v.Whitcomb, 208n, 214nAssignment of rights, 11, 131 45, 157, 185f Breach of contract, 28f, 105, 107Assumpsit, 3n, 25 29 passim, 41, 201n Bucket shops, 122Atiyah, P.S., 2, 43n Bump v.Pratt, 51nAutonomy, 4f, 73, 80, 86, 183, 192 96 passim, Burton, Steven J., 172ff, 178f, 183n, 185n,229 34 passim 205nBailment, 22 28 passim, 33n, 40 44 passim, Calculation, 3 6, 10, 12, 17, 22, 44, 92 9470n, 202n, 229 128f, 148f, 228f, 232ff.See also under Indi-Baker, Tom, 101n, 104, 130n vidual identityBallantine, Henry Winthrop, 33f Capitalism, 92n, 151, 153, 195, 221f, 227 31Bank deposit gifts, 48 50.See also Joint accounts; passim.See also Market consciousnessSurvivorship Cardozo, Benjamin N., 72fBanker s Reserve Life v.Matthews, 144f Carns v.Bassick, 212fBarnett, Randy, 191f, 199f, 224n Chamberlain v.Butler, 143ff 240 i n d e xCharny, David, 47n, 165n, 167n, 171f, 191n, Evidence, 39, 49, 53 56, 93, 112 17 passim; of193f, 220n intent to make gift, 49, 52, 56 59Chicago Board of Trade, 105 9 passim, 118, Expectation damages, 105, 107121f Expertise, 128, 157City of Chicago v.Sexton, 209Classical legal thought, 6 11 passim, 15 38 Fabian, Ann, 102f, 120, 148n, 159npassim, 42ff, 68 75 passim, 80, 82n, 86 93 Fairness in exchange, 45, 76f, 91n, 164 71 pas-passim, 108, 164, 189 96 passim, 200 204 sim, 175, 179 83 passim, 190, 195f, 206f,passim, 215 25 passim, 229 36 passim 211f, 218, 223, 236.See also Unconsciona-Cohen v.Rothschild, 116 bilityCohen, Felix S., 72f Farnsworth, E.Allen, 1f, 78n, 80n, 111n, 168n,Coleman, Jules L., 171f, 174n 170n, 177 79, 184n, 204fCommodification, 78 82, 90n Finnie v.Walker, 144fCommunity, 36n, 102f, 117, 124, 127, 148, Fisher v.Ludwig, 47n, 49n151n, 171n, 180f, 198, 218 Formalism, 11, 164, 188 97 passim, 204, 216Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v.Schaefer, Formalities, 46 49, 53n, 57 59, 73 75, 78102n, 129n, 143n Fraud, 23n, 28, 53 58 passim, 111, 126f, 179Consent, 5, 36 41 passim, 172, 185f, 190 96 Free labor ideology, 84f, 232, 234passim, 199 202, 218f, 223 Free market, 3, 12, 223Consideration, preclassical functions of, 23 32 Freedom of contract, 3n, 22, 84f, 89, 99, 146,Consolidation, 149 174n, 188ff, 195 200 passim, 221Construction, 24n, 62, 154, 165 72 passim, Fried, Charles, 2n, 166n, 181, 183n, 193178f, 194 97, 203, 206, 214, 219f.See also Fuller, Lon L., 19n, 29n, 72 81 passim, 90f,interpretation; Suppletive rules 111n, 200n, 221nContract types, 5f, 20f, 170n, 202n, 204n, 217, Functionalism, 73f, 78 83 passim, 109n229.See also Bailment; AgencyCoppage v.Kansas, 197f Gambling, 97 130 passim, 134 59 passimCorbin, Arthur L [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.18 This conception is both a bet-ter account of judicial practice, and a way to improve on that practice byridding it of those commitments that have the effect of limiting contract sfairness-promoting, or redistributive potential.19 Contract is a conception,and thus, it may be reconceived, or reimagined.A prod to our imagination,and a reminder that the current conception is neither timeless nor transcen-dent, is the fact that only a century and a half ago, contract was conceivedof quite differently.The transformation of contract is tied to complex eco-nomic and social changes, but its technical doctrinal manifestation is visiblein the work of classical theorists.My claim here has been that what classicalGilmore, The Death of Contract 24 (2d ed.1995).Gilmore s history and theory have become objects ofroutine disparagement, but Gilmore s first calling was literary criticism, and his insights into the Nietzs-chean mode by which the classical interpretation of contract became dominant, and its violence in oust-ing previously popular interpretations of contract, remain salient.By subjecting the cases to a rereading,and by emphasizing how controversial the classical interpretations and classifications of the cases werewhen they appeared, Gilmore reminds us of the creative power of classical theorizing.18.One of the important parts of such a view of contract would be some account of how potential regu-lation works, not only when the potential is exercised, but also when it remains in the shadows, since therefusal of the state to exercise power over a given relationship allows whoever wields power within therelationship to violate the relationship s norms with impunity.19.At least one scholar has made the case that the best reading of the history of contract should placethe fairness of distribution at its center, while retaining the focus on promise enforcement.See JamesGordley, Enforcing Promises, 83 Cal.L.Rev.547, 548 (1995). conclusion: undermining the metaphysics of contract 237contract theory undertook piecemeal, it achieved wholesale.The rhetoricalframework that made enforcing promises into the centerpiece of contractretains its power today, and perhaps is the major factor limiting contract stransformative potential. IndexAcquisitive individuality, 100, 147, 150 Bank of Ettrick v.Emberson, 115nAddison, C.G., 33n, 38f Beale, Joseph Henry, 27, 33n, 40ffAdequacy of consideration, 29, 77, 140n, 233 Beaver v.Beaver, 57fAgency, 5n, 22f, 42, 44, 70n, 213n.See also Benjamin, Walter, 152Contract types Bensel, Richard Franklin, 4nAlbers v.Lamson, 123f, 151n Benson, Peter, 2n, 72n, 192f, 224nAnson, William, R., 39n, 41n, 202n Bernstein, Lisa, 193fAnticipatory breach of contract, 107 Bishop, Joel Prentiss, 215fAntigambling discourse, 100 104, 119ff, 124, Bloom, Harold, 227, 235139ff, 148, 159 Board of Trade of Chicago v.Christie Grain andAntigaming statutes, 97n, 108 21 passim Stock Co., 121f, 150n, 157nArnold, Thurman, 225f Bourdieu, Pierre, 92fAshton, John, 126 30 passim Bradford v.Whitcomb, 208n, 214nAssignment of rights, 11, 131 45, 157, 185f Breach of contract, 28f, 105, 107Assumpsit, 3n, 25 29 passim, 41, 201n Bucket shops, 122Atiyah, P.S., 2, 43n Bump v.Pratt, 51nAutonomy, 4f, 73, 80, 86, 183, 192 96 passim, Burton, Steven J., 172ff, 178f, 183n, 185n,229 34 passim 205nBailment, 22 28 passim, 33n, 40 44 passim, Calculation, 3 6, 10, 12, 17, 22, 44, 92 9470n, 202n, 229 128f, 148f, 228f, 232ff.See also under Indi-Baker, Tom, 101n, 104, 130n vidual identityBallantine, Henry Winthrop, 33f Capitalism, 92n, 151, 153, 195, 221f, 227 31Bank deposit gifts, 48 50.See also Joint accounts; passim.See also Market consciousnessSurvivorship Cardozo, Benjamin N., 72fBanker s Reserve Life v.Matthews, 144f Carns v.Bassick, 212fBarnett, Randy, 191f, 199f, 224n Chamberlain v.Butler, 143ff 240 i n d e xCharny, David, 47n, 165n, 167n, 171f, 191n, Evidence, 39, 49, 53 56, 93, 112 17 passim; of193f, 220n intent to make gift, 49, 52, 56 59Chicago Board of Trade, 105 9 passim, 118, Expectation damages, 105, 107121f Expertise, 128, 157City of Chicago v.Sexton, 209Classical legal thought, 6 11 passim, 15 38 Fabian, Ann, 102f, 120, 148n, 159npassim, 42ff, 68 75 passim, 80, 82n, 86 93 Fairness in exchange, 45, 76f, 91n, 164 71 pas-passim, 108, 164, 189 96 passim, 200 204 sim, 175, 179 83 passim, 190, 195f, 206f,passim, 215 25 passim, 229 36 passim 211f, 218, 223, 236.See also Unconsciona-Cohen v.Rothschild, 116 bilityCohen, Felix S., 72f Farnsworth, E.Allen, 1f, 78n, 80n, 111n, 168n,Coleman, Jules L., 171f, 174n 170n, 177 79, 184n, 204fCommodification, 78 82, 90n Finnie v.Walker, 144fCommunity, 36n, 102f, 117, 124, 127, 148, Fisher v.Ludwig, 47n, 49n151n, 171n, 180f, 198, 218 Formalism, 11, 164, 188 97 passim, 204, 216Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v.Schaefer, Formalities, 46 49, 53n, 57 59, 73 75, 78102n, 129n, 143n Fraud, 23n, 28, 53 58 passim, 111, 126f, 179Consent, 5, 36 41 passim, 172, 185f, 190 96 Free labor ideology, 84f, 232, 234passim, 199 202, 218f, 223 Free market, 3, 12, 223Consideration, preclassical functions of, 23 32 Freedom of contract, 3n, 22, 84f, 89, 99, 146,Consolidation, 149 174n, 188ff, 195 200 passim, 221Construction, 24n, 62, 154, 165 72 passim, Fried, Charles, 2n, 166n, 181, 183n, 193178f, 194 97, 203, 206, 214, 219f.See also Fuller, Lon L., 19n, 29n, 72 81 passim, 90f,interpretation; Suppletive rules 111n, 200n, 221nContract types, 5f, 20f, 170n, 202n, 204n, 217, Functionalism, 73f, 78 83 passim, 109n229.See also Bailment; AgencyCoppage v.Kansas, 197f Gambling, 97 130 passim, 134 59 passimCorbin, Arthur L [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]