Advertisement

Bargaining Within the Shadow of Fairness: Economic Analysis of Article 4.109 of the Principles of European Contract Law

  • Mariusz Jerzy Golecki
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The problem of unequal bargaining power has been widely analyzed within the philosophical and economic literature. In this article I would like to concentrate on the issue of “excessive benefit or grossly unfair advantage” as envisaged in Article 4.109 (ex art. 6.109) of The Principles of European Contract Law (PECL). The normative significance of PECL indicates that the codification may be applied by parties as a supranational system of general principles of law or international commercial law (lex mercatoria). The economic analysis of European contract law will be divided in two parts. The first part will include the traditional economic analysis of contract law under an unrealistic assumption of zero transaction costs. It could be argued that even then contract failure may occur. This part concerns the so-called “contract failure”. The second will be focused primarily on contracts made in a positive transaction cost world, where the presence of transaction costs leads to a “market failure”. Both parts pertain to the regulation of contracts by courts within a framework of judicial governance. The main instrument of such judicial governance seems to be the concept of a hypothetical bargain or hypothetical contract. The most appropriate tool to be implemented in these cases seems to be game theory. Whether the benefit is excessive or not, it should be compared with the hypothetical division of surplus from the exchange stemming from the face-to-face ideal bargaining process. Thus the problem of a “market failure” may be analyzed from the perspective of a potential solution to the bargaining problem. In conclusion I would like to address the question of whether and under what conditions it is possible to construct any plausible and generally accepted criteria of fairness in order to restore contractual equivalence in case of gross inadequacy in bargaining power.

Key words

Coase theorem judicial governance reciprocity economic theory of contracts Nash bargaining solution 

JEL Classification

K 12 C 71 C 78 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alpa, G., E.N. Buccico, R. Danovi. 2001. eds., Il Codice Civile Europeo, Giuffrè Editore, Milano.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J. and G. Debreu. 1954. “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy”, Econometrica 22. 266.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, I. and R. Gertner. 1989. “Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules”, Yale Law Journal 94: 96–114.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, D.G., Gertner, G.H., Picker R.C. 1995. Game Theory and the Law, Harvard University Press, Cam.Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R.E. 1986. “A Consent Theory of Contract”, Columbia Law Review 86. 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basedow, J. 1996. “A Common Contract Law for the Common Market”, Common Market Law Review 33: 1169–1172.Google Scholar
  7. Beale, H. and O. Lando. 2000. Eds., Principles of European Contract Law.Parts I and II Combined and Revised. Kluwer, The Hague.Google Scholar
  8. Binmore, K. 1998. Game Theory and the Social Contract II, Just Playing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  9. Bonell, M.J. 1996. “The UNIDROIT Principles of International Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law: Similar Rules for the Same Purpose?”, Uniform Law Review 19: 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan J.M. 1970. “In Defense of Caveat Emptor”, University of Chicago Law Review 38: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabresi G. 1968. “Transaction Costs, Resource Allocation, and Liability Rules - A Comment”, Journal of Law and Economics 11: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calabresi G. 1970. The Costs of Accidents.A Legal and Economic Analysis, Yale University Press, New Heaven.Google Scholar
  13. Calabresi G. and A.D. Melamed. 1972. “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral”, Harvard Law Review 85, 1089–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charny, D. 1991. “Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation”, Michigan Law Review 89: 1815–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coase, R.H. 1990. The Firm, the Market and the Law, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Cooter, R. 1982. “The Cost of Coase”, Journal of Legal Studies 11: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooter, R. and T. Ulen. 2000. Law and Economics, Harlow, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.Google Scholar
  18. Craswell, R. 1989. “Contract Law, Default Rules, and the Philosophy of Promising”, Michigan Law Review 88: 489–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Debreu, G. 1962. “New Concepts and Techniques for Equilibrium Analysis”, International Economic Review 3: 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faber, D. 1983. “Contract Law and Modern Economic Theory”, Northern University Law Review 78: 310–322.Google Scholar
  21. Harsanyi, J. 1955. “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and the Interpersonal Comparison of Utility”, Journal of Political Economics, 63: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hermalin, B., A.W. Katz, R. Craswell. 2007. “Contract Law” (in: A.M. Polinsky and S. Shavell, ed., Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 1), North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Hirshl. R. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, Harvard University Press, Cam.Mass.Google Scholar
  24. Hoffman, E. and M. Spitzer. 1986. “Entitlements, Rights and Fairness: An Experimental Examination of Subjects’ Concept of Distributive Justice”, Journal of Legal Studies 14: 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holler, M.J. and S. Napel. 2001. “On Interpersonal Comparison of Value” (in K. Nevalainen, ed., Justice, Charity, and the Welfare State: Moral and Social Dimensions), Acta Philosophica Fennica 64: pp. 132–134.Google Scholar
  26. Hylland, A. and R. Zeckhauser. 1979. “The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions”, Journal of Political Economy, 87: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., Knetsch J. and Thaler R. 1986. “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit-Seeking: Entitlements in the Market”, American Economics Review 76: 728–729.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplow. L., and Shavell S. 2002. Fairness versus Welfare, Harvard University Press, Cam.Mass.Google Scholar
  29. Katz. A. 1990. “The Strategic Structure of Offer and Acceptance: Game Theory and the Law of Contract Formation”, Michigan Law Review 89: 215–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy. D. 1982. “Distributive and Paternalist Motives in Contract and Tort Law, with Special Reference to Compulsory Terms and Unequal Bargaining Power”, Maryland Law Review 42: 563–589.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy. D. 2002. “The Political Stakes in ‘Merely Technical’ Issues of Contract Law”, European Review of Private Law 10: 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landes, W. and Posner R. 1978. “Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans, and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism”, Journal of Legal Studies 7: 83–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lando. O. 1997. “The Harmonization of European Contract Law through a Restatement of Principles”, University of Oxford, Centre for the Advanced Study of European and Comparative Law, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Legrand, P. 1997. “Against a European Civil Code”, Modern Law Review 59: 1–44.Google Scholar
  35. Lurger, B. 2004. “The Social Side of Contract Law and the New Principle of Regard and Fairness”, (in: A. Hartkamp et al., eds., Towards a European Civil Code), Kluwer, Nijmegen, pp. 273–291.Google Scholar
  36. Mattei, U. 1999. “Efficiency and Equal Protection in the New European Contract Law: Mandatory, Default and Enforcement Rules”, Vanderbildt Journal of International Law 39: 537–572.Google Scholar
  37. Nash. J.F. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem”, Econometrica 18: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Posner R. 1992. Economic Analysis of Law, Little Brown and Company, Boston-Toronto-London.Google Scholar
  39. Posner. E.A. 2002. “Economic Analysis of Contract Law after Three Decades: Success or Failure?”, The Chicago Working Paper Series 146: 13–24.Google Scholar
  40. Regan. D.H. 1972. “The Problem of Social Cost Revisited”, Journal of Law and Economics 15: 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubinstein. A. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model”, Econometrica 50.p.97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubinstein. A. 2001. Economics and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Rubinstein, A. Safra, Z., Thomson W. 1992. “On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution”, Econometrica 60: 1171–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schäfer, H.B. and Ott C. 2000. Lehrbuch der okonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen, A. 1977. Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden Day, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. Stone Sweet. A. 1999. “Judicialization and the Construction of Governance”, Comparative Political Studies 31: 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stone Sweet. A. 2000. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilhelmson, T. 1995. Social Contract Law and European Integration, Aldershot, Darmouth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariusz Jerzy Golecki
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for European Legal StudiesUniversity of CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations