Citation

Publication Date: 2011-11-11
Format: Working Paper
Bibliography: Barbara H. Fried, The Holmesian Bad Man Flubs His Entrance, Suffolk University Law Review, Symposium on Contract as Promise at Thirty Years, Forthcoming; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 1957835 (2011).

More

In his 1980 Contract as Promise, Charles Fried famously argued that in the event one side fails to perform on the main subject of a contract, we should vindicate the moral bindingness of promises by giving the nonbreacher expectation damages. Over the years, other liberal contract theorists have argued just as strenuously for specific performance on the same grounds.

I argue here that both sides in this dispute are wrong. The right position for a will theorist or any other stripe of liberal contract theorist to take with respect to acceptable alternatives to performance is, in the first instance, no position at all - or more precisely, that each side should have whatever alternatives the parties agreed she should have. If liberal contract theorists ought to have no first-order moral preferences among possible alternatives to performance, what accounts for the almost universal view to the contrary? The short answer, I suggest, is blame it on Holmes.

Other publications by this author

View All

• A Song of Longing; Elegy for Daniel
  2012-04-15
• The Unwritten Theory of Justice: Rawlsian Liberalism Versus Libertarianism
  2011-11-14
• The Limits of a Nonconsequentialist Approach to Torts
  2011-11-11
• What Does Matter? The Case for Killing the Trolley Problem (Or Letting it Die)
  2011-03-24
• Does Nozick Have a Theory of Property Rights?
  2011-03-09
• Can Contractualism Save Us from Aggregation?
  2011-03-08
• Robert Lee Hale
  2009-06-01
• Punting Our Future: College Athletics and Admissions
  2007-05-15
• What's Morality Got to Do With It?
  2007-01-01
• Is as Ought: The Case of Contracts
  2006-01-01