Contract Law Now — Reality Meets Legal Fictions

Modern contract law is designed to achieve a fundamental objective, namely, to ensure that voluntary agreements between private parties are legally binding. The appropriateness of this objective and the assumptions underlying it are rarely questioned. Legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike presuppose that the binding nature of contracts is a desirable and positive feature of our legal system. But are the assumptions underlying the modern contract system sound? Do people behave in the way that contract law supposes? And are the concepts of voluntary, informed consent and freedom from state interference really the hallmarks of the modern contract system? This article explores and seeks to answer these questions. In so doing, it reveals an overlooked gap between theory and practice that calls into doubt the notion that contract law has anything to do with freedom and voluntary consent. Drawing on leading social science literature, this article seeks to make two contributions. First, the article shows that the assumptions underlying the modern contract law framework are flawed both theoretically and practically. Many contracts are not entered into voluntarily by rational actors, and the state regularly interferes. Imbalances of power, not freedom and consent, form the cornerstones of the modern system of contract law. Second, the article attempts to reveal the way contract law promotes and privileges these power imbalances. While the positions staked out in this article are admittedly foreign to conventional contract law theory, they are far from radical. Instead, they flow naturally from well-accepted social science insights, including the work of Legal Realists, Critical Legal Studies scholars, relational contract theorists, and, more recently, the field of behavioral law and economics. What is striking is not that the positions advanced here depart from conventional belief but that the lessons from leading social science research have had, to date, so little impact on contract doctrine. This article seeks to change that

Contract Law & Racial Inequality: A Primer

(Excerpt) America was founded on institutionally recognized and supported oppression, namely, slavery and conquest. So, the fact that the inequality spawned by this oppression continues to exist today should surprise absolutely no one. That said, the extent of the racialized social and economic inequality that pervades American society today is being exposed in horrifying and glaring detail, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. African Americans, the Latinx community, indigenous communities, and immigrants are at much greater risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19 because of now widely-acknowledged systemic health and social inequality and inequity. More specifically, in July 2021, the CDC reported that the death rate for African Americans was 2.0 times higher than the death rate for whites, for American Indians and Alaskan Natives the death rate was 2.4 times higher, and for Hispanics/Latinx people the death rate was 2.3 times higher

Contract Law Now — Reality Meets Legal Fictions

Modern contract law is designed to achieve a fundamental objective, namely, to ensure that voluntary agreements between private parties are legally binding. The appropriateness of this objective and the assumptions underlying it are rarely questioned. Legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike presuppose that the binding nature of contracts is a desirable and positive feature of our legal system. But are the assumptions underlying the modern contract system sound? Do people behave in the way that contract law supposes? And are the concepts of voluntary, informed consent and freedom from state interference really the hallmarks of the modern contract system? This article explores and seeks to answer these questions. In so doing, it reveals an overlooked gap between theory and practice that calls into doubt the notion that contract law has anything to do with freedom and voluntary consent. Drawing on leading social science literature, this article seeks to make two contributions. First, the article shows that the assumptions underlying the modern contract law framework are flawed both theoretically and practically. Many contracts are not entered into voluntarily by rational actors, and the state regularly interferes. Imbalances of power, not freedom and consent, form the cornerstones of the modern system of contract law. Second, the article attempts to reveal the way contract law promotes and privileges these power imbalances. While the positions staked out in this article are admittedly foreign to conventional contract law theory, they are far from radical. Instead, they flow naturally from well-accepted social science insights, including the work of Legal Realists, Critical Legal Studies scholars, relational contract theorists, and, more recently, the field of behavioral law and economics. What is striking is not that the positions advanced here depart from conventional belief but that the lessons from leading social science research have had, to date, so little impact on contract doctrine. This article seeks to change that

Varespladib and cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: the VISTA-16 randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: Secretory phospholipase A2(sPLA2) generates bioactive phospholipid products implicated in atherosclerosis. The sPLA2inhibitor varespladib has favorable effects on lipid and inflammatory markers; however, its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of sPLA2inhibition with varespladib on cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 362 academic and community hospitals in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, India, and North America of 5145 patients randomized within 96 hours of presentation of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to either varespladib (n = 2572) or placebo (n = 2573) with enrollment between June 1, 2010, and March 7, 2012 (study termination on March 9, 2012). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive varespladib (500 mg) or placebo daily for 16 weeks, in addition to atorvastatin and other established therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy measurewas a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with evidence of ischemia requiring hospitalization at 16 weeks. Six-month survival status was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a prespecified interim analysis, including 212 primary end point events, the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility and possible harm. The primary end point occurred in 136 patients (6.1%) treated with varespladib compared with 109 patients (5.1%) treated with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95%CI, 0.97-1.61; log-rank P = .08). Varespladib was associated with a greater risk of MI (78 [3.4%] vs 47 [2.2%]; HR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.16-2.39; log-rank P = .005). The composite secondary end point of cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke was observed in 107 patients (4.6%) in the varespladib group and 79 patients (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.82; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with recent ACS, varespladib did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and significantly increased the risk of MI. The sPLA2inhibition with varespladib may be harmful and is not a useful strategy to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130246. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Contract Law & Racial Inequality: A Primer

(Excerpt) America was founded on institutionally recognized and supported oppression, namely, slavery and conquest. So, the fact that the inequality spawned by this oppression continues to exist today should surprise absolutely no one. That said, the extent of the racialized social and economic inequality that pervades American society today is being exposed in horrifying and glaring detail, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. African Americans, the Latinx community, indigenous communities, and immigrants are at much greater risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19 because of now widely-acknowledged systemic health and social inequality and inequity. More specifically, in July 2021, the CDC reported that the death rate for African Americans was 2.0 times higher than the death rate for whites, for American Indians and Alaskan Natives the death rate was 2.4 times higher, and for Hispanics/Latinx people the death rate was 2.3 times higher