THE EVOLUTION OF CONTRACT REMEDIES (AND WHY DO CONTRACTS PROFESSORS TEACH REMEDIES FIRST?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay traces the evolution of the scholarly understanding of contract remedies, beginning with the era in which the compensation principle and expectation damages dominated. Fuller and Perdue's classic articles in 1936/1937 and the theory of efficient breach in the 1970s each offered important justifications for the principle. However, as economic analysis extended to incorporate a wider range of incentive and risk-bearing goals, support for the compensation principle became increasingly frayed. The emergence of the incomplete contracts theory further weakened its normative significance. In practice, the cutting-edge uses of contract damages pursue several other objectives unrelated to compensation. In particular, damages promote contracting goals by (a) providing prices for embedded options or (b) setting the stakes, and thereby incentives, for future litigation. Finally, the essay discusses the design of ‘tiered’ damages within a single contract that are triggered by different contingencies. In this sense, damages and contract conditions act as complements as well as substitutes. In light of the complex and interactive role played by contract remedies, the author suggests that this topic should be taught near the end rather than at the beginning of the first-year contracts course.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".