Philosophically allowing the defendant and the victim to choose a remedy

Philosophically allowing the defendant and the victim

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 9 pages.

Philosophically, allowing the defendant and the victim to choose a remedy together achieves the best modern aim of contract law, which is to set legal rules and bring party forward; at the same time upholding the classic view of “sanctity of contract”, 15 Schwartz The Case for Specific Performance, Yale Law Journal 271 (1979) 16 Ibid 278 17 Ibid 278 18 E Yorio In Defense of Money Damages for Breach of Contract Columbia Law Review Vol 82 No.7 Nov 1982 1366
Image of page 7
by letting the court to set the appropriate compensation framework while leaving some room for the parties to deal with their contract. Conclusion The grounds of a valid contract alone cannot justify the protection of expectation interests when awarding damages, because the causal link between them is weak. Although the current versions of both expectation interests and reliance interests have defect, expectation interests reconciles better with the function of contract law by bringing the parties forward. Current damages grounded by the doctrine of expectation interests may be improved with an additional option of money or specific performance available to be chosen for both parties.
Image of page 8
Bibliography Cases Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Ex Rep 850 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8 Security Stove & Manufacturing Co v American Railway Express Co [1932] 51 SW 2d 572 Articles C Fried , Contract as Promise : A theory of Contractual Obligation (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981) D Friedmann, The Performance Interest in Contract Damages (1995) 111 Law Quarterly Review 629 R Craswell Contract Law, Default Rules, and the Philosophy of promising 1989 88 Michigan Law Review J Poole Damages for Breach of Contract—Compensation and ‘Personal Preferences’: Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth (The Modern Law Review Vol 59 No.2, Mar., 1996) Schwartz The Case for Specific Performance, Yale Law Journal 271 (1979) E Yorio In Defense of Money Damages for Breach of Contract Columbia Law Review Vol 82 No.7 Nov 1982 MB Kelly The Phantom Reliance Interest in Contract Damages (1992) Wisconsin Law Review AL Ognus Damages for Pre-Contract Expenditue (1972)35 Modern Law Review 423 LL Fuller and WR Perdue Jr The Reliance Interest in contract Damages 1 and 2 46 Yale Law Journal 52 and 373 (1936)
Image of page 9

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Fall '15
  • Contract Law, Modern Law Review, expectation interests, Contract Columbia Law Review

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes