Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Should courts always enforce what contracting parties write?

By Luca Anderlini, Leonardo Felli and Andrew Postlewaite


We find an economic rationale for the common-sense answer to the question in our title ¿ courts should not always enforce what the contracting parties write. We describe and analyse a contractual environment that allows a role for an active court. An active court can improve on the outcome that the parties would achieve without it. The institutional role of the court is to maximize the parties' welfare under a veil of ignorance. We study a buyer-seller model with asymmetric information and ex-ante investments, in which some contingencies cannot be contracted on. The court must decide when to uphold a contract and when to void it. The parties know their private information at the time of contracting, and this drives a wedge between ex-ante and interim-efficient contracts. In particular, some types pool in equilibrium. By voiding some contracts that the pooling types would like the court to enforce, the court is able to induce them to separate, and hence to improve ex-ante welfare

Topics: HF Commerce, K Law (General)
Publisher: Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2003
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). Active Courts and Menu Contracts," doi
  2. (2005). Careerist Judges and the Appeals Process,"
  3. (2003). Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law," doi
  4. (2003). Contracting in the Presence of Judicial Agency," doi
  5. (2007). Courts of Law and Unforeseen Contingencies," doi
  6. (2005). Eciently Regulated Competition in Economies with Adverse Selection,"
  7. (1989). Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules," Yale Law Journal, 87.Should Courts Always Enforce What Contracting Parties Write? doi
  8. (1992). Incomplete Contracts and Signalling," doi
  9. (1998). Incomplete Contracts and Strategic Ambiguity,"
  10. (1991). Information and the Scope of Liability for Breach of Contract: The Rule of Hadley V. Baxendale," doi
  11. (1990). Legal Restrictions on Private Contracts Can Enhance Eciency,"
  12. (2005). On the Rationale for Penalty Default Rules," Institute for Advanced Study.
  13. (2006). On the Writing and Interpretation of Contracts," doi
  14. (1991). Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium and Sequential Equilibrium," doi
  15. (1982). Sequential Equilibria," doi
  16. (1987). Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria," doi
  17. (2007). Statute Law or Case Law?," London School of Economics mimeo. doi
  18. (1988). Subgame Perfect Implementation," doi
  19. (1998). The Parol Evidence Rule, The Plain Meaning Rule, and the Principles of Contractual Interpretation," doi
  20. (1992). The Principal Agent Relationship with an Informed Principal II: Common Values," Econometrica, 60, 1{42.Should Courts Always Enforce What Contracting Parties Write?
  21. (1990). The Principal Agent Relationship with an Informed Principal, I: Private Values," doi
  22. (1999). The Questionable Ascent of Hadley v. Baxendale," doi
  23. (2002). Veri and Contract Enforcement: A Model with Judicial Moral Hazard," doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.