The Divergence of Contract and Promise

Article by Seana Valentine Shiffrin

In U.S. law, a contract is described as a legally enforceable promise. So to make a contract, one must make a promise. The legal norms regulating these promises diverge in substance from the moral norms that apply to them. This divergence raises questions about how the moral agent is to navigate both the legal and moral systems. This Article provides a new framework to evaluate the divergence between legal norms and moral norms generally and applies it to the case of contracts and promises. It introduces and defends an approach to the relationship between morality and law that adopts the perspective of moral agents subject to both sets of norms and argues that the law should accommodate the needs of moral agency. Although the law should not aim to enforce interpersonal morality as such, the law’s content should be compatible with the conditions necessary for moral agency to flourish. Some aspects of contract not only fail to support the morally decent person, but also contribute to a legal and social culture that is difficult for the morally decent person to accept. Indeed, U.S. contract law may sometimes make it harder for the morally decent person to behave decently.



120 Harv. L. Rev. 708 (2007) | DOWNLOAD PDF | LEXIS NEXIS | WESTLAW

RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE

What's Morality Got To Do With It?
By Barbara H. Fried

The Convergence of Contract and Promise
By Charles Fried

Contract and Promise
By Liam Murphy



MORE FROM THIS ISSUE

ARTICLE: Precontractual Liability and Preliminary Agreements

BOOK REVIEW: Anglo-American Empire and the Crisis of the Legal Frame (Will the Real British Empire Please Stand Up?)

NOTE: Federal Funding for Newcomer Schools: A Bipartisan Immigrant Education Initiative

RECENT CASE: District Court Holds That Recipients of Government Leaks Who Disclose Information "Related to the National Defense" May Be Prosecuted Under the Espionage Act. — United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006).

RECENT CASE: Ninth Circuit Holds That "Involuntary" Conduct Cannot Be Punished. — Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006).

RECENT CASE: California Superior Court Holds That the Knock-and-Announce Requirement Is Applicable When an Absent Third Party Has Consented to Search. — People v. West, No. CC633123 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2006).

RECENT CASE: Louisiana Supreme Court Permits Retroactive Extension of Prescriptive Period in Insurance Contracts. — State v. All Property & Casualty Insurance Carriers, 937 So. 2d 313 (La. 2006).

RECENT CASE: First Circuit Holds That Trading Drugs for Guns Constitutes "Use" of a Gun for Purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(C). — United States v. Cotto, 456 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006).

RECENT CASE: D.C. Circuit Holds Claims of Harms to Native Inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory Caused by the Construction of a U.S. Military Base Nonjusticiable. — Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

RECENT PUBLICATIONS: Recent Publications


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)