A Theory of Contracts with Limited Enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a Theory of Contracts under costly enforcement in the context of a dynamic relationship between an uninformed buyer and a seller who is privately informed on his persistent cost at the outset. Public enforcement relies on remedies for breach. Private enforcement comes from severing relationships. We first characterize aggregate enforcement constraints ensuring that trading partners do not breach contracts unduly. Whether a long-term contract is enforceable does not depend on the distribution of penalties for breach between the buyer and the seller. While under complete information, the optimal contract would remain stationary, non-stationarity might arise under asymmetric information. Enforcement constraints are time-dependent and easier to satisfy as time passes. Indeed, a high-cost seller may be tempted to trade high volumes at high prices at the beginning of the relationship before breaching the contract later on. Yet, such take-the-money-and-run strategy becomes less attractive as time passes and can be prevented with back loaded payments. The optimal contract thus goes through two different phases. First, quantities and prices increase at the inception of the relationship. Later on, the contract looks more stationary. Long-run screening distortions encapsulate the quality of enforcement, offering de facto a link between the quality of the legal system and contractual performances. / Nous présentons une théorie des contrats avec exécution coûteuse dans le contexte d'une relation dynamique entre un acheteur non informé et un vendeur avec information privée quant à son coût persistant au départ. L’exécution publique des contrats s'appuie sur les recours pour violation. L’exécution privée consiste à de rompre les relations. En premier lieu, nous caractérisons les contraintes d'exécution globale. La possible exécution d’un contrat à long terme ne dépend pas de la distribution des pénalités pour rupture entre l'acheteur et le vendeur. Sous information complète, le contrat optimal resterait stationnaire, alors qu’il pourrait être non stationnaire lorsque l'information est asymétrique. Les contraintes de l'application dépendent du temps et sont plus faciles à satisfaire à mesure que le temps passe. En effet, un vendeur avec des coûts élevés peut être tenté d'échanger de grandes quantités à des prix élevés au début de la relation avant de rompre le contrat par la suite. Pourtant, telle stratégie, prendre l’argent et courir, devient moins attrayante à mesure que le temps passe et peut être évitée. Le contrat optimal passe donc par deux phases différentes. Tout d'abord, les quantités et les prix augmentent lors de la création de la relation. Plus tard, on le contrat semble plus stable. Les distorsions dues au dépistage de long terme signalent, ce qui suggère de facto un lien entre la qualité du système légal et les performances contractuelles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".