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

Contracts Commons

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

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Contracts

Mistake And Disclosure In A Model Of Two-Sided Informational Inputs, Michael J. Borden Jul 2008

Mistake And Disclosure In A Model Of Two-Sided Informational Inputs, Michael J. Borden

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This paper will examine some theoretical aspects of contractual non-disclosure and the related doctrine of unilateral mistake. These two legal rubrics are conceptually similar; each is concerned with the degree to which parties must communicate their understandings about the nature of the contract into which they are about to enter. If one party fails to reveal enough information, the other party may enter into the agreement under a misunderstanding and consequently may attempt to avoid contractual liability on the basis of mistake or on a theory of nondisclosure. The law of contracts clearly attaches a great deal of importance to …


Promissory Estoppel And The Protection Of Interpersonal Trust , John J. Chung Jan 2008

Promissory Estoppel And The Protection Of Interpersonal Trust , John J. Chung

Cleveland State Law Review

This paper examines the role of trust in promissory estoppel and the extent to which the law should protect trust when a promise is made. Part II of this Article summarizes some of the scholarship discussing the nature and role of trust. In particular, it discusses the role of trust in a market economy, and the related role of trust in Contracts law. Part III examines whether there is a difference between trust and reliance, and whether it matters. Part III further asserts that a separate discussion of trust is beneficial because it has the potential to guide and inform …


Possibility Of Plain Meaning: Wittgenstein And The Contract Precedents, Val D. Ricks Jan 2008

Possibility Of Plain Meaning: Wittgenstein And The Contract Precedents, Val D. Ricks

Cleveland State Law Review

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co and In re Soper's Estate claim that plain meaning in contract law is impossible. This claim is left irrefuted in the casebooks and contract law literature, Part I notes, and in most teaching of contract law. The consequence is that students are taught that plain meaning is impossible. A startling implication of this conclusion, as Part I explains, is that the majority of U.S. courts, which hold to the plain meaning rule, are relying on a fiction. But the claim that plain meaning is impossible is false, as …