Traynor (Drennan) Versus Hand (Baird) Much Ado About (Almost) Nothing

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Legal Analysis Pub Date : 2011-03-25 DOI:10.1093/JLA/LAR003
Victor P. Goldberg
{"title":"Traynor (Drennan) Versus Hand (Baird) Much Ado About (Almost) Nothing","authors":"Victor P. Goldberg","doi":"10.1093/JLA/LAR003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most Contracts casebooks feature either Baird v. Gimbel or (Drennan v. Star Paving to illustrate the limits on revocability of an offer. In this paper an analysis of the case law yields three major conclusions. First, as is generally known, in the contractor-subcontractor cases Drennan has prevailed. However, both it and its spawn, Restatement 2d 87(2), have had almost no impact outside that narrow area. Moreover, almost all the cases involve public construction projects - private projects account for only about ten percent of the cases. This suggests that private parties have managed to resolve the problem contractually. Public contract law is encrusted with regulations, which courts and contracts scholars have ignored. The result is a peculiar phenomenon - a supposedly general contract doctrine that applies only in a specific context, but which ignores the features of that context.","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":"71 1","pages":"539-585"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/LAR003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most Contracts casebooks feature either Baird v. Gimbel or (Drennan v. Star Paving to illustrate the limits on revocability of an offer. In this paper an analysis of the case law yields three major conclusions. First, as is generally known, in the contractor-subcontractor cases Drennan has prevailed. However, both it and its spawn, Restatement 2d 87(2), have had almost no impact outside that narrow area. Moreover, almost all the cases involve public construction projects - private projects account for only about ten percent of the cases. This suggests that private parties have managed to resolve the problem contractually. Public contract law is encrusted with regulations, which courts and contracts scholars have ignored. The result is a peculiar phenomenon - a supposedly general contract doctrine that applies only in a specific context, but which ignores the features of that context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特雷纳(德伦南)对汉德(贝尔德)无事生
大多数合同案例都以Baird诉Gimbel案或Drennan诉Star铺路案为特色,以说明要约可撤销性的限制。本文通过对判例法的分析,得出了三个主要结论。首先,众所周知,在承包商-分包商案件中,德雷南占了上风。然而,它和它的衍生品《重述2d 87(2)》在这个狭窄区域之外几乎没有任何影响。此外,几乎所有的案件都涉及公共建设项目,私人项目仅占案件的10%左右。这表明,私人各方已经设法通过合同解决了这个问题。公共合同法有很多规定,而法院和合同学者却忽视了这些规定。其结果是一种奇特的现象——一种被认为是通用的合同原则,只适用于特定的语境,但却忽视了该语境的特点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Limits of Formalism in the Separation of Powers Putting Freedom of Contract in its Place Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models How Election Rules Affect Who Wins Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1