Law Commons^™

Covid-19 And Cancelled 2020 College Football Games Contracts: Force Majeure?, Drew Thornley

St. Mary's Law Journal

After COVID-19, majeure clauses accounting for the possibility of a pandemic will become the norm in college football game contracts. Indeed, some contracts are already including pandemics in their lists of force majeure-triggering events. Such language has already been added to collegiate game contracts. For example, a contract signed in May 2020 for the 2025 football game between Wisconsin and Miami (Ohio) lists as force majeure-triggering events “regional or global epidemics, pandemics, quarantines, and other similar health threats (e.g.[,] coronavirus, influenza, etc.).” Scholars explain that “the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic warranted immediate revisitation of college football contracts.”

However, …

In (Partial) Defense Of Strict Liability In Contract, Robert E. Scott

Michigan Law Review

Many scholars believe that notions of fault should and do pervade contract doctrine. Notwithstanding the normative and positive arguments in favor of a fault-based analysis of particular contract doctrines, I argue that contract liability is strict liability at its core. This core regime is based on two key prongs: (1) the promisor is liable to the promisee for breach, and that liability is unaffected by the promisor's exercise of due care or failure to take efficient precautions; and (2) the promisor's liability is unaffected by the fact that the promisee, prior to the breach, has failed to take cost-effective precautions …

Stipulated Damages, Super-Strict Liability, And Mitigation In Contract Law, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

The remedy of expectancy damages in contract law is conventionally described as strict liability for breach. Parties sometimes stipulate damages in advance, and may agree that the damages they stipulate shall be the exclusive remedy for breach. They may do so because of their conviction that they can, even in advance, assess damages with greater accuracy than courts, and they may be wary of litigation costs associated with the postbreach determination of expectancy damages. This Article advances two claims. First, that the familiar expectation remedy is correctly understood to involve elements of fault. There is litigation over the question of …