Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Contract Law, Party Sophistication And The New Formalism, Meredith R. Miller Jan 2010

Contract Law, Party Sophistication And The New Formalism, Meredith R. Miller

Scholarly Works

With increasing frequency, courts are mentioning party sophistication as relevant to whether a contract has been formed, whether a contract is enforceable, how the contract should be interpreted, and even, in some instances, the determination of an appropriate remedy. Sophisticated parties are held to a different set of rules, grounded in freedom of contract. It is presumed that a sophisticated party was aware of what to bargain for and read (or should have read) and understood (or should have understood) the terms of a written agreement.

But, just what do courts mean when they call a contracting party “sophisticated”?

“Sophistication” …


Organizations Matter: They Are Institutions, After All, John Linarelli Jan 2010

Organizations Matter: They Are Institutions, After All, John Linarelli

Scholarly Works

Judge Posner (2010) offers a substantial agenda for organization economics. He advises us on how organization economics can shed substantial light on some of the most pressing social problems of the day. I comment on two of the areas he selects for discussion and offer some comments on the relationship of organization economics to new institutional economics. Judge Posner surely is right to argue that organization economics can help us understand the failures of corporate governance in regulating executive pay. Moreover, with additional and more institutionally nuanced theorizing, organizational economics should further our understanding of the work of judiciaries in …


The Insurance Policy As Social Instrument And Social Institution, Jeffrey W. Stempel Jan 2010

The Insurance Policy As Social Instrument And Social Institution, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Insurance policies are classified as a species of contract. Although this characterization is correct, it is unduly narrow if used as the exclusive lens for assessing insurance policies, which are not merely contracts but also are designed to perform particular risk management, deterrence, and compensation functions important to economic and social ordering. Recognizing this has significant implications regarding the manner in which insurance policies are construed in coverage disputes and suggests that policy construction can be improved by not only performing traditional contract analysis of disputed policies but also by appreciating the particular function of the insurance policy in question …


Misclassifying The Insurance Policy: The Unforced Errors Of Unilateral Contract Characterization, Hazel G. Beh, Jeffrey W. Stempel Jan 2010

Misclassifying The Insurance Policy: The Unforced Errors Of Unilateral Contract Characterization, Hazel G. Beh, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Insurance policies are traditionally classified as unilateral or “reverse-unilateral” contracts, a characterization we find largely incorrect, with problematic consequences for adjudication of insurance coverage disputes. In addition to the general difficulties attending the unilateral classification, the concept as applied to insurance policies is not only unhelpful but incorrect. Insurance policies are more accurately viewed as bilateral contracts. In addition, the unilateral characterization of insurance policies introduces error and inconsistency into the litigation of insurance controversies. In particular, the unilateral view tends toward excessive formalism and focus on so-called “conditions” precedent to coverage, eschewing material breach analysis and encouraging needless forfeitures …


The Insurance Policy As Statute, Jeffrey W. Stempel Jan 2010

The Insurance Policy As Statute, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Insurance policies are classified as a subspecies of contract. Although the taxonomy is correct, rigid adherence to this classification system limits the legal system's ability to deal with some of the most problematic and frequently litigated questions of insurance coverage. Restricting conception of insurance policies to the contract model unduly limits analysis of the meaning and function of the policies. In addition, restricting characterization of insurance as a matter of “contract” does not necessarily produce swift, inexpensive, efficient, or uniform decisions (to say nothing about accuracy, justice, or fairness). Within contract law, scholars, and courts differ over the respective primacy …