Talk:Contract theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
all contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts.Discuss
I havent too much time to spend on this essay/exam question. But, instead I just wanted to warn people that this article needs some heavy work because frankly, it is dire. In terms of representing the myriad different interpretations of contract rules, and the many different theories posited, it is frankly dire.
Firstly, you cannot simply distinguish between "classical" theory and then "modern" theory. There is, in my judgement, no such thing as "classical" theory. I have never read any theory labelled "classic". There are will theories, bargain theories, promissory theories, consent theories, economic theories.... There is no "classical" element to any of them, since in actual fact many of them rest on interpretation of classic cases and classic rules. It is only the modern writers who seek to label some as "classical" that have been relied upon by others misconceived to describe a distinction between "classical" and "modern". Indeed, this classification is dire, since the complexitiy of modern contract law is due to the fact that it has elements of all different theories and that is embodied in its many haphazard doctrines.
[edit] Part of the common law series?
I wonder why this article is (or should be) "Part of the common law series". Contract theory is much the same subject in common law and civil law jurisdictions. Velho 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
