Bibliographic record
Abstract
S PECTOR AUTHOR APPROVED EDITS 12-01-05 (H)(P). DOC 2/22/2006 5:03:07 PM A CONTRACTARIAN APPROACH TO UNCONSCIONABILITY H ORACIO S PECTOR ∗ I NTRODUCTION Freedom of contract can be defended on the basis of consequentialist and nonconsequentialist views. According to the former, individuals can improve their condition when they are free to exchange goods and services by making contracts. Improvement of condition can occur by affecting both the production and the consumption function. First, free exchanges facili- tate division of labor and the efficient allocation of the factors of produc- tion. Second, because individuals have different utility functions, there is room for mutually advantageous agreements. Nonconsequentialist views defend freedom of contract on ethical grounds. So liberalism holds that a just society must treat individuals as autonomous beings entitled to choose and do as they see fit provided they do not violate others’ rights. One way of treating individuals in this way is to let them be free to pursue and ac- complish associative endeavors for which freedom of contract is often an indispensable institution. 1 Given the strong case for freedom of contract, the burden of proof falls on any position that purports to restrain its scope. The doctrine of un- conscionability authorizes courts to introduce a variety of restrictions on contractual freedom. Specifically, it allows a court to refuse to enforce unfair private agreements, and it allows a court to modify the terms of a contract that the court deems unfair or unreasonable. 2 Arthur Leff intro- duced a famous distinction between two kinds of unconscionability: proce- ∗ This paper was presented at the Centre de Recherche en Ethique de l’Universite de Montreal on September 23, 2005. I am grateful to my audience and to my commentator, Catherine Valcke, for helpful criticism. I also benefited from comments by Alan Brudner, Marcelo Ferrante, Eduardo Rivera-Lopez, Arthur Ripstein, Gopal Sreenivasan, Luc Tremblay, and Ernie Weinrib. 1. See Richard A. Epstein, Unconscionability: A Critical Reappraisal, 18 J.L. & E CON . 293 2. See, e.g., U.C.C. § 2-302 (2002); R ESTATEMENT (S ECOND ) OF C ONTRACTS § 208 (1981). In civil law jurisdictions, the doctrine of laesio enormis, which is an expansive construal of a remedy in Roman law, performs basically the same function as the doctrine of unconscionability. See James Gordley, Contract, Property, and the Will—The Civil Law and Common Law Tradition, in T HE S TATE AND F REEDOM OF C ONTRACT 66, 75–76 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 1998).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".