Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:25:30.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TWO THEORIES OF AGREEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2007

Oliver Black
Oliver Black
Affiliation:
King's College London, Linklaters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philosophers have been attracted by the theory that an agreement consists of undertakings by the parties. But the theory faces objections from three sides: unconditional undertakings by both parties are insufficient for an agreement; if the parties give interconditional undertakings, both comply if neither does anything; and, if one party gives an unconditional undertaking and the other a conditional one, a condition of interdependence is breached. The options are to live with the breach, to produce an undertaking-based theory that avoids the objections, or to analyze an agreement otherwise than in terms of undertakings. I consider each option and advocate the third: a better theory is that two people have an agreement where one makes an offer to the other that the other accepts.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atiyah P. 1986 “The Modern Role of Contract Law,” in Essays on Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Benson P. 2001 “The Unity of Contract Law,” in P. Benson, ed., The Theory of Contract Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Black O. 1998 “The Relation between Reliance and Obligation,” in P. Kampits et al., eds., Applied Ethics (Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society).
Black O. 2003 “Independent Promises and the Rescission of Contracts.” Legal Studies 23 (4).Google Scholar
Black O. 2004a “Agreements, Undertakings and Practical Reason.” Legal Theory 10.Google Scholar
Black O. 2004b “Reliance and Obligation.” Ratio Juris 17 (3).Google Scholar
Black O. 2005 Conceptual Foundations of Antitrust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Blackburn S. 1998 “Supervenience,” in E. Craig, ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 9 (London: Routledge).
Castañeda H. 1999 The Phenomeno-Logic of the I (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Dancy J. 1993 Moral Reasons (Oxford: Blackwell).
De Moor A. 1987 “Are Contracts Promises?” in J. Eekelaar and J. Bell, eds., Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Gilbert M. 1996 Living Together (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Grice H. 1989 Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Hohfeld W. 1985 “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” in D. Lloyd and M. Freeman, eds., Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence (London: Stevens & Sons).
Horton J. 1992 Political Obligation (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan).
Kim J. 1993 Supervenience and Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Penner J. 1996 “Voluntary Obligations and the Scope of the Law of Contract,” Legal Theory 2.Google Scholar
Raz J. 1977 “Promises and Obligations,” in P. Hacker and J. Raz, eds., Law, Morality, and Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Strawson P. 1963 Introduction to Logical Theory (London: Methuen).
Trebilcock M. 1993 The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Treitel G. 1995 The Law of Contract, 9th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell).