A Brief Rejoinder to Professor Mullock

Mullock on Summers on Hart is bad enough, but Summers on Mullock on Summers on Hart is worse. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no rule (primary or secondary) entitling either of us to vouch Professor Hart into the proceedings. With all due respect to Professor Mullock (and to me, of course), I fear the two of us may be compounding erroneous interpretations of Professor Hart’s work. Sans Hart, I shall exercise admirable restraint and argue over the meaning of the scripture. Regrettably, Professor Mullock and I are both defenders of the faith; I had hoped to draw the fire of a non-Christian

A Critique of the Business-Purpose Doctrine

The aims of this article are: (1) to define the nature and significance of the business-purpose doctrine as applied in the field of Federal income taxation; (2) to summarize several considerations that support abandonment of the doctrine; and (3) to consider whether a substitute doctrine is needed. Several recent cases indicate that the influence of the business-purpose doctrine is declining, and in the recent case of Knetsch v. United States the Supreme Court appears to have substituted an alternative doctrine. The dual thesis of the present article is that the business-purpose doctrine ought to be abandoned and that there is no need for a substitute

Good Faith Revisited: Some Brief Remarks Dedicated to the Late Richard E. Speidel - Friend, Co-Author, and U.C.C. Specialist

Here, in regard to the U.C.C., I will focus, but only in a general way, on U.C.C. section 1-304 - formerly section 1-203 - which imposes a general obligation of good faith. I will also address, but again only in a general way, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and general contract law dealing with good faith. I will not undertake to provide extended analyses of the U.C.C. or Restatement, nor extended analyses of the case law under the Code or in general contract law