Declared dead some twenty-five years ago, the idea of freedom of contract has enjoyed a remarkable intellectual revival. In The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract leading scholars in the fields of contract law and law-and-economics analyze the new interest in bargaining freedom. The 1970s was a decade of regulatory triumphalism in North America, marked by a surge in consumer, securities, and environmental regulation. Legal scholars predicted the “death of contract” and its replacement by regulation and reliance-based theories of liability. Instead, we have witnessed the reemergence of free bargaining norms. This revival can be attributed to the rise of law-and-economics, which laid bare the intellectual failure of anticontractarian theories. Scholars in this school note that consumers are not as helpless as they have been made out to be, and that intrusive legal rules meant ostensibly to help them often leave them worse off. Contract law principles have also been very robust in areas far afield from traditional contract law, and the essays in this volume consider how free bargaining rights might reasonably be extended in tort, property, land-use planning, bankruptcy, and divorce and family law. This book will be of particular interest to legal scholars and specialists in contract law. Economics and public policy planners will also be challenged by its novel arguments. Contributors. Gregory S. Alexander, Margaret F. Brinig, F. H. Buckley, Robert Cooter, Steven J. Eagle, Robert C. Ellickson, Richard A. Epstein, William A. Fischel, Michael Klausner, Bruce H. Kobayashi, Geoffrey P. Miller, Timothy J. Muris, Robert H. Nelson, Eric A. Posner, Robert K. Rasmussen, Larry E. Ribstein, Roberta Romano, Paul H. Rubin, Alan Schwartz, Elizabeth S. Scott, Robert E. Scott, Michael J. Trebilcock

Examines the history of the liberty of contract and shows how this right has been continuously diminished by court decisions and by our country's growing regulatory and welfare state.

The impact of freedom of contract in the 19th century extended far beyond the legal arena as an economic slogan and an ethical attitude. Atiyah traces the development and subsequent decline of the freedom of contract, depicting its effects on the law's development and the foundation of contractual obligations, as well as its broader implications for 19th century English life.

The Choice Theory of Contracts is an engaging landmark that shows, for the first time, how freedom matters to contract.

“One of the most important contributions to the field of contract theory—if not the most important—in the past 25 years.” —Stephen A. Smith, McGill University Can we account for contract law on a moral basis that is acceptable from the standpoint of liberal justice? To answer this question, Peter Benson develops a theory of contract that is completely independent of—and arguably superior to—long-dominant views, which take contract law to be justified on the basis of economics or promissory morality. Through a detailed analysis of contract principles and doctrines, Benson brings out the specific normative conception underpinning the whole of contract law. Contract, he argues, is best explained as a transfer of rights, which is complete at the moment of agreement and is governed by a definite conception of justice—justice in transactions. Benson’s analysis provides what John Rawls called a public basis of justification, which is as essential to the liberal legitimacy of contract as to any other form of coercive law. The argument of Justice in Transactions is expressly complementary to Rawls’s, presenting an original justification designed specifically for transactions, as distinguished from the background institutions to which Rawls’s own theory applies. The result is a field-defining work offering a comprehensive theory of contract law. Benson shows that contract law is both justified in its own right and fully congruent with other domains—moral, economic, and political—of liberal society.

The relationship of law to economic freedom has been a vital element in the history of all modern democratic societies. "Freedom of contract" is both a technical term in law, referring to private agreements and promises, and a metaphor often deployed to describe economic liberty. This volume of new essays by eminent legal historians offers fresh perspectives on freedom of contract in both senses of the term, and considers how economic freedom relates to such classic political freedoms as free speech and other Anglo-American constitutional norms. The principal focus of the essays is on broad issues of policy and law, rather than on narrow considerations of legal doctrine. All the contributors reject stereotypes that pervade the existing literature about the allegedly unalloyed individualism of the common law, and show how active state interventions of various kinds have shaped contract law in relation to social change throughout our legal history. Equally, however, they reject shibboleths regarding "bringing the state back in," and take a hard look at the claims of statist ideology regarding the norms and rules that have established the legal boundaries of liberty in the modern industrial and post-industrial eras. The topics covered are Blackstone's claim that property was the "despotic dominion of the private owner" (A. W. B. Simpson), labor and contract (John V. Orth), the influence of philosophical trends on legal innovations (James Gordley), contract and individualism (David Lieberman), the tradition of public rights (Harry N. Scheiber), the formal concept of "liberty of contract" in American law (Charles McCurdy), the interwoven history of labor law and contract law (Arthur McEvoy), public policy in relation to natural resources (Donald Pisani), and globalization of freedom of contract (Martin Shapiro).

Our legal system is committed to the idea that private markets and the law of contracts that supports them are the primary institutions for allocating goods and services in a modern economy. Yet the market paradigm, this book argues, leaves substantial room for challenge. For example, should people be permitted to buy and sell blood, bodily organs, surrogate babies, or sexual favors? Is it fair to allow people with limited knowledge about a transaction and its consequences to enter into it without guidance from experts?