MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195145689 · doi:10.32920/24653421

Contracting Out Liability for Negligent Pre-Contractual Misrepresentation

2023· article· en· W3195145689 on OpenAlexaff
Daniele Bertolini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisrepresentationPlaintiffTortLawLiabilityBusinessLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the extent to which entire agreement clauses (EACs) and non-reliance clauses (NRCs) are enforceable to preclude actions for negligent pre-contractual misrepresentations. It is argued that courts could improve legal certainty and contractual fairness by adopting two distinct legal rules to be applied, respectively, to contracts between sophisticated parties and in adhesion contracts. First, it is suggested that in contracts between sophisticated parties only specific contractual barriers to actions should provide a complete defence against negligent misrepresentation claims. Under this rule, the exclusionary effect of EACs and NRCs would be achieved only if an express term of the contract is inconsistent with the pre-contractual statement on which the plaintiff bases their tort claim. Second, it is proposed that in contracts of adhesion EACs and NRCs should be regarded as presumptively unconscionable, thereby precluding sophisticated parties from using such clauses as a shield against tort claims for negligence misrepresentations. Dans cet article, nous examinons dans quelle mesure les clauses d’accord global (CAG) et les clauses de non-recours (CNR) sont exécutoires pour exclure les actions pour fausses déclarations précontractuelles négligentes. Nous soutenons que les tribunaux pourraient améliorer la certitude juridique et l’équité contractuelle en adoptant deux règles juridiques distinctes à appliquer, respectivement, aux contrats entre parties averties et aux contrats d’adhésion. Premièrement, il est suggéré que dans les contrats entre parties averties, seules des barrières contractuelles spécifiques aux actions devraient fournir une défense complète contre les réclamations pour fausse déclaration négligente. En vertu de cette règle, l’effet d’exclusion des CAG et des CNR ne serait obtenu que si une clause expresse du contrat est incompatible avec la déclaration précontractuelle sur laquelle le demandeur fonde son action en réparation. Deuxièmement, il est proposé que, dans les contrats d’adhésion, les CAG et les CNR soient considérées comme présumées inadmissibles, empêchant ainsi les parties averties d’utiliser de telles clauses comme rempart contre les actions en réparation pour fausses déclarations négligentes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207