The present study critically examines the account of legal thought developed in Roberto Unger\u27s very long article, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (1983), and tests it against Unger\u27s own account of certain exemplary difficulties in the Anglo-American law of Contract. These scrutinies reveal that Unger\u27s account fundamentally misunderstands the ways of legal thought, and disguises its misunderstanding behind equivocations on (in)determinate and (un)justified
