I think of law (and I think most people do) as, at its best, a codification of common sense. There are a lot of rules we all expect to be bound by, and we write them down so they can be applied even-handedly. By that standard, contract law has gone way off the rails. It's only week two, and we're getting into some bizarre, esoteric concepts. If I write you a letter promising to give you my shoes and sign that letter in my blood, is it a contract? No. If you sign a letter granting me a one month option to buy your house, is that a contract? Yes. What if the letter says the option costs one dollar, and I don't pay you a dollar? Still a valid contract. Suppose I sign a letter that says if you pay me a dollar today I'll pay you a hundred dollars next week. Not a contract.
How did it get so weird? My theory is that people only enter into contracts in situations where they think litigation is likely. Because contracts are being litigated all the time, the courts are constantly having to come up with new exceptions and justifications that bend the law to fit unforseen situations. The result is this ugly amalgam of rules, exceptions and special cases. But that's just my theory. Maybe by the end of the semester all areas of law will look grotesque and counterintuitive to me. Or maybe some ephiphany will reveal the serene logic underlying contracts. Let's hope for the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment