Justifying the application of the theory of efficient breach specifically within the context of commercial contracting. \n
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provides a functional, and justifiable application of the theory of the efficient breach of \ncontract within the commercial context. Limiting the theory’s application in this way is the primary \noriginal contribution. This is because the theory of efficient breach has not been explicitly applied \nsolely to the commercial setting previously. This is legitimate because the underlying intention \nbehind commercial contracting is profit generation. As such, maximising the wealth which flows \nfrom commercial contracts will be the focus of the parties involved. An additional original \ncontribution is that this thesis represents the first major discussion of efficient breach which applies \nthe theory to English law. \n \nThis thesis also makes additional contributions. A definition of “commercial” in a contract law \ncontext is established to frame the discussion that is to follow. It is then outlined that the fundamental \nstructure of English contract law will remain the same whether a dispute concerns a commercial, or \na non-commercial contract. However, there is a difference in the approach of the court where rights \nare pursued for commercial, profit driven reasons in contrast with rights that are of a personal nature. \nNext, it is set out that in English law, promise is not the basis of contract. As such, the efficient breach \nof commercial contracts cannot be discounted based on issues of morality which are linked to \npromise breaking. Numerous other criticisms which have been directed at efficient breach are also \ndiscounted. \n \nUltimately, a legitimate formulation of the efficient breach of commercial contracts is outlined. This \niteration is permissive, rather than mandatory. It provides efficient optionality, meaning that where \na party has the opportunity to breach efficiently, it will not necessarily take place. However, should \na party choose to breach, they will be justified. This is a departure from more prescriptive approaches.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it