Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Limits of Contracts

  • Ann-Sophie VandenbergheEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_540

Synonyms

Definition

Limits of contracts refer to a number of exceptions in contract law to the rule that courts should fully enforce voluntary agreements between capable parties.

Introduction

Economic analysis and the rational actor model have dominated contract scholarship for at least a generation. More recently, a group of behaviorists has challenged the ability of the rational choice model to account for contracting behavior. Numerous tests done by psychologists and experimental economics have shown that people often do not exhibit the kinds of reasoning ascribed to agents in rational choice models (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Behavioral economics incorporates evidence of decision-making flaws that people exhibit to model consumer markets in which sophisticated firms interact with boundedly rational consumers. Behavioral law and economics uses existing scholarship in both cognitive psychology and behavioral economics to explain legal...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Armstrong M (2008) Interactions between competition and consumer policy. Compet Policy Int 4:96–147Google Scholar
  2. Ayres I, Schwartz A (2014) The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Rev 66:545–610Google Scholar
  3. Badawi A (2014) Rationality’s reach. Mich Law Rev 112:993–1014Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Gill O (2004) Seduction by plastic. Northwest Univ Law Rev 98:1373–1434Google Scholar
  5. Bar-Gill O (2006) Bundling and consumer misperception. Univ Chicago Law Rev 73:33–61Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Gill O (2008) The behavioural economics of consumer contracts. Minnesota Law Rev 92:749–802Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Gill O (2012) Seduction by contract: law, economics, and psychology in consumer markets. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bar-Gill O, Ben-Shahar O (2013) Regulatory techniques in consumer protection: a critique of European consumer contract law. Common Mark Law Rev 50:109–126Google Scholar
  9. Ben-Shahar O, Posner E (2011) The right to withdraw in contract law. J Leg Stud 40:115–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Geest G (2002) The signing-without-reading problem: an analysis of the European directive on unfair contract terms. In: Schäfer H, Lwowski H (eds) Konsequenzen Wirtschaftsrechtlicher Normen. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Geest G (2013) Irredeemable acts, rent seeking, and the limits of the legal system: a response to professor Raskolnikov. Georgetown Law J Online 103:23–28Google Scholar
  12. De Geest G (2014) The death of Caveat Emptor. University of Chicago Law School. Law and Economics Workshop. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/degeest_paper_0.pdf
  13. De Geest G, Wuyts F (2000) Penalty clauses and liquidated damages. In: Bouckaert B, De Geest G (eds) Encyclopedia of law and economics, volume III. The regulation of contracts. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, http://encyclo.findlaw.com/4610book.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. Eidenmüller H (2011) Why withdrawal rights? ERCL 1:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenberg M (1995) The limits of cognitions and the limits of contracts. Stanford Law Rev 47:211–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Q J Econ 121:505–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg V (1974) Institutional change and the quasi-invisible hand. J Law Econ 17:461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillman R (2000) The limits of behavioral decision theory in legal analysis: the case of liquidated damages. Cornell Law Rev 85:717–738Google Scholar
  19. Hoeppner S (2014) The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise, reciprocation, and consistency. Eur J Law Econ 38:247–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jolls C, Sunstein C, Thaler R (1998) A behavioural approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev 50:1471–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98:1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz A (1990) The strategic structure of offer and acceptance: game theory and the law of contract formation. Mich Law Rev 89:215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loewenstein G (2000) Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. Am Econ Rev 90:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madrian B, Shea D (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behaviour. Q J Econ 116:1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Posner E (2003) Economic analysis of contract law after three decades: success or failure? Yale Law Rev 112:829–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rachlinsky J (2000) The “new” law and psychology: a reply to critics, skeptics, and cautious supporters. Cornell Law Rev 85:739–766Google Scholar
  27. Rea S (1984) Efficiency implications of penalties and liquidated damages. J Leg Stud 13:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rekaiti P, Van den Bergh R (2000) Cooling-off periods in the consumer laws of the EC member states. A comparative law and economics approach. J Consum Policy 23:371–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rizzo M, Whitman D (2009) The knowledge problem of new paternalism. BYU Law Rev 4:905–968Google Scholar
  30. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1:7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. Univ Chicago Law Rev 70:1159–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verkerke J (2015) Legal ignorance and information-forcing rules. William & Mary Law Rev 56:899–959Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE), Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands