Law Commons^™

Finding Fault With Wonnell's "Two Contractual Wrongs", George M. Cohen

San Diego Law Review

Professor Christopher Wonnell's excellent paper, Expectation, Reliance, and the Two Contractual Wrongs,' makes two basic points,

both of which I find convincing, but neither of which contract scholars generally appreciate and accept. The first point, largely descriptive and so less controversial, is that the concepts of expectation and reliance are not simply two different ways of conceiving compensation; rather, they are two different ways of conceiving contractual wrongs from both a moral and an economic perspective.2 From a moral perspective, expectation damages remedy the wrong of breaching a contractual promise that should have been performed. Reliance damages remedy the wrong …

Expectation, Reliance, And The Two Contractual Wrongs, Christopher T. Wonnell

San Diego Law Review

Expectation and reliance are concepts that continue to vie for priority as core organizing principles of contract law. The expectation and reliance interests appear to differ from each other both in how they conceptualize the essential wrong alleged in contract litigation and in how they would propose to remedy that wrong. Expectation views the wrong as the breaking of a promise, and seeks to remedy that wrong by awarding specific or substitutionary relief that will give the promisee the benefit of that promise.' Reliance views the wrong as the making of a promise that induced the promisee to change her …

Remedies For Imperfect Transactions In Contracts And Torts, David W. Barnes

San Diego Law Review

The papers by Professors DeLong, Wonnell, and Kelly in this Symposium address different types of imperfect transactions. Promises that are the subject of section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts are imperfect in the sense that they lack consideration or are disclaimed in subsequent, formalized, written contracts.' Section 90 authorizes courts to find remedies for reasonable but fruitless expenditures induced by parties who make promises on which they should reasonably expect others to rely.2 Professor DeLong decries courts' formalist strategies for enforcing disclaimers that eliminate these promisors' potential liability for intentionally imperfect transactions.' Taking Professor DeLong's analysis of imperfect …