承诺与私法

Nathan B. Oman
{"title":"承诺与私法","authors":"Nathan B. Oman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1907142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay was part of a symposium on the thirtieth anniversary of the publication of Charles Fried’s Contract as Promise and revisits Fried’s theory in light of two developments in the private law scholarship: the rise of corrective justice and civil recourse theories. The structural features that motivate these theories – the bilateralism of damages and the private standing of plaintiffs – are both elements of the law of contracts that Contract as Promise sets out to explain. I begin with the issue of bilateralism. Remedies – in particular the defense of expectation damages – occupy much of Fried’s attention in Contract as Promise, and he insists that this particular remedial response flows from a commitment to promissory morality. I am skeptical of this claim and seek to show the implausibility of grounding compensatory damages in a duty to keep a promise. Rather, to explain this feature of contract law the duty to keep a promise must be joined with principles of corrective justice. I next turn to the issue of private standing. First, I seek to demonstrate that our plaintiff-centered system of contract law is a genuine puzzle. We cannot dismiss the issue of private standing as a pragmatic and ad hoc response to problems of enforcement. Rather, I argue that a better candidate can be found in the work of civil recourse theorists who seek to elucidate the value of victims in a liberal society holding wrongdoers accountable for their wrongs. Finally, I address some of the problems associated with the arguments presented in this essay. How exactly do promissory morality, corrective justice, and civil recourse relate to one another? My conclusion is that at best there is an uneasy and ill-defined relationship between these different goals. On the other hand, I hope to show that promissory theories of contract nevertheless must take the issue of private law seriously. The bilateral structure of liability and the system of private standing are major institutional features whose existence must be acknowledged and accounted for in future efforts to defend a promissory vision of contract.","PeriodicalId":82862,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University law review","volume":"45 1","pages":"935"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promise and Private Law\",\"authors\":\"Nathan B. Oman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1907142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay was part of a symposium on the thirtieth anniversary of the publication of Charles Fried’s Contract as Promise and revisits Fried’s theory in light of two developments in the private law scholarship: the rise of corrective justice and civil recourse theories. The structural features that motivate these theories – the bilateralism of damages and the private standing of plaintiffs – are both elements of the law of contracts that Contract as Promise sets out to explain. I begin with the issue of bilateralism. Remedies – in particular the defense of expectation damages – occupy much of Fried’s attention in Contract as Promise, and he insists that this particular remedial response flows from a commitment to promissory morality. I am skeptical of this claim and seek to show the implausibility of grounding compensatory damages in a duty to keep a promise. Rather, to explain this feature of contract law the duty to keep a promise must be joined with principles of corrective justice. I next turn to the issue of private standing. First, I seek to demonstrate that our plaintiff-centered system of contract law is a genuine puzzle. We cannot dismiss the issue of private standing as a pragmatic and ad hoc response to problems of enforcement. Rather, I argue that a better candidate can be found in the work of civil recourse theorists who seek to elucidate the value of victims in a liberal society holding wrongdoers accountable for their wrongs. Finally, I address some of the problems associated with the arguments presented in this essay. How exactly do promissory morality, corrective justice, and civil recourse relate to one another? My conclusion is that at best there is an uneasy and ill-defined relationship between these different goals. On the other hand, I hope to show that promissory theories of contract nevertheless must take the issue of private law seriously. The bilateral structure of liability and the system of private standing are major institutional features whose existence must be acknowledged and accounted for in future efforts to defend a promissory vision of contract.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suffolk University law review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"935\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suffolk University law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1907142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suffolk University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1907142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文是查尔斯·弗里德《契约即承诺》出版三十周年研讨会的一部分,并根据私法学术的两个发展:纠正正义和民事追索权理论的兴起,重新审视了弗里德的理论。激励这些理论的结构特征——损害赔偿的双边主义和原告的私人地位——都是《合同即承诺》试图解释的合同法的要素。我从双边主义问题开始。救济——尤其是对预期损害的辩护——占据了弗里德在《契约即承诺》一书中的大部分注意力,他坚持认为,这种特殊的补救反应源自对承诺道德的承诺。我对这种说法持怀疑态度,并试图证明将补偿性损害赔偿作为履行承诺的义务是不合理的。相反,为了解释合同法的这一特征,履行承诺的义务必须与纠正性正义原则结合起来。我接下来谈谈私人地位的问题。首先,我试图证明我们以原告为中心的合同法制度是一个真正的难题。我们不能把私人地位的问题视为对执法问题的务实和临时反应而不予考虑。相反,我认为,更好的候选人可以在民事追索权理论家的工作中找到,他们试图阐明自由社会中受害者让不法行为者对其错误负责的价值。最后,我解决了与本文中提出的论点相关的一些问题。承诺道德、纠正性正义和民事追索权究竟如何相互关联?我的结论是,这些不同的目标之间充其量只是存在一种令人不安的、不明确的关系。另一方面,我希望表明,尽管如此,契约的承诺理论必须认真对待私法问题。双边责任结构和私人诉讼制度是主要的制度特征,它们的存在必须得到承认,并在今后捍卫合同的承诺愿景的努力中加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Promise and Private Law
This essay was part of a symposium on the thirtieth anniversary of the publication of Charles Fried’s Contract as Promise and revisits Fried’s theory in light of two developments in the private law scholarship: the rise of corrective justice and civil recourse theories. The structural features that motivate these theories – the bilateralism of damages and the private standing of plaintiffs – are both elements of the law of contracts that Contract as Promise sets out to explain. I begin with the issue of bilateralism. Remedies – in particular the defense of expectation damages – occupy much of Fried’s attention in Contract as Promise, and he insists that this particular remedial response flows from a commitment to promissory morality. I am skeptical of this claim and seek to show the implausibility of grounding compensatory damages in a duty to keep a promise. Rather, to explain this feature of contract law the duty to keep a promise must be joined with principles of corrective justice. I next turn to the issue of private standing. First, I seek to demonstrate that our plaintiff-centered system of contract law is a genuine puzzle. We cannot dismiss the issue of private standing as a pragmatic and ad hoc response to problems of enforcement. Rather, I argue that a better candidate can be found in the work of civil recourse theorists who seek to elucidate the value of victims in a liberal society holding wrongdoers accountable for their wrongs. Finally, I address some of the problems associated with the arguments presented in this essay. How exactly do promissory morality, corrective justice, and civil recourse relate to one another? My conclusion is that at best there is an uneasy and ill-defined relationship between these different goals. On the other hand, I hope to show that promissory theories of contract nevertheless must take the issue of private law seriously. The bilateral structure of liability and the system of private standing are major institutional features whose existence must be acknowledged and accounted for in future efforts to defend a promissory vision of contract.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Planning for Law as a Career and an Enterprise Making Law with Lawsuits: Understanding Judicial Review in Campaign Finance Policy Promise and Private Law The Communist Party & the Law: An Outline of Formal and Less Formal Linkages between the Ruling Party and the Other Legal Institutions in the People's Republic of China Bearing False Witness: Perjured Affidavits and the Fourth Amendment
×
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