Contracts Commons^™

An Introduction To Personal Growth Bets: Using Contract Law To Lose Weight And Quit Smoking, Max Raskin, Jack Millman

Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies

Self-improvement is hard. Whether losing weight or quitting smoking, individuals have a difficult time honoring their commitments, especially if the only person they are disappointing is themselves. In this Article, we introduce a new legal mechanism for incentivizing personal growth. We describe this mechanism as a personal growth contract, which allows an individual to make an enforceable agreement with either a counterparty or himself with the aim of self-improvement. We propose the use of smart contracts to help execute unilateral personal growth contracts. Our conclusion is that personal growth contracts should be presumptively legal, provided they do not violate some …

Specific Performance: On Freedom And Commitment In Contract Law, Hanoch Dagan, Michael Heller

Notre Dame Law Review

When should specific performance be available for breach of contract? This question—at the core of contract—divides common-law and civil-law jurisdictions and it has bedeviled generations of comparativists, along with legal economists, historians, and philosophers. Yet none of these disciplines has provided a persuasive answer. This Article provides a normatively attractive and conceptually coherent account, one grounded in respect for the autonomy of the promisor’s future self. Properly understood, autonomy explains why expectation damages should be the ordinary remedy for contract breach. This same normative commitment justifies the “uniqueness exception,” where specific performance is typically awarded, and the personal services exclusion, …

A Prophylactic Approach To Compact Constitutionality, Katherine Mims Crocker

Notre Dame Law Review

From COVID-19 to climate change, immigration to health insurance, firearms control to electoral reform: state politicians have sought to address all these hot-button issues by joining forces with other states. The U.S. Constitution, however, forbids states to “enter into any Agreement or Compact” with each other “without the Consent of Congress,” a requirement that proponents of much interstate action, especially around controversial topics, would hope to circumvent.

The Supreme Court lets them do just that. By interpreting “any Agreement or Compact” so narrowly that it is difficult to see what besides otherwise unlawful coordination qualifies, the Court has essentially read …