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

Law Commons

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

Juliet P Kostritsky

Contract Interpretation

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Means/Ends Dilemma In Contract Interpretation: A Response To Professors Kraus And Scott: How The Intractability Of Express Language Affects Interpretive Authority And Legal Interventions In Contracts, Juliet P. Kostritsky Jul 2009

The Means/Ends Dilemma In Contract Interpretation: A Response To Professors Kraus And Scott: How The Intractability Of Express Language Affects Interpretive Authority And Legal Interventions In Contracts, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Juliet P Kostritsky

In their recent article on Contract Design and Intent, Professors Jody Kraus and Robert Scott offer a new justification for literal enforcement of the parties’ chosen terms and for ignoring the contract’s objectives. Their argument depends on a theory of how parties trade off front end and back end costs. Kraus and Scott posit that if parties use specific terms, and fail to use open-ended terms, they have chosen to exclude courts from broadly interpreting the contract or going beyond the chosen means. As such, courts should rigorously adhere to the parties’ explicit contractual means and spurn any judicial strategy …


The Means/Ends Dilemma In Contract Interpretation: A Response To Professors Kraus And Scott: How The Intractability Of Express Language Affects Interpretive Authority And Legal Intervention In Contracts, Juliet P. Kostritsky Jul 2009

The Means/Ends Dilemma In Contract Interpretation: A Response To Professors Kraus And Scott: How The Intractability Of Express Language Affects Interpretive Authority And Legal Intervention In Contracts, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Juliet P Kostritsky

In their recent article on Contract Design and Intent, Professors Jody Kraus and Robert Scott offer a new justification for literal enforcement of the parties’ chosen terms and for ignoring the contract’s objectives. Their argument depends on a theory of how parties trade off front end and back end costs. Kraus and Scott posit that if parties use specific terms, and fail to use open-ended terms, they have chosen to exclude courts from broadly interpreting the contract or going beyond the chosen means. As such, courts should rigorously adhere to the parties’ explicit contractual means and spurn any judicial strategy …