Fixing unfair costs /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Ben-Shahar, Omri, author.
Imprint:[Chicago, Illinois] : Law School, University of Chicago, 2011.
Description:1 online resource (42 pages)
Language:English
Series:John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper ; no. 552 (2d series)
John M. Olin Program in Law & Economics working paper ; 2nd ser., no. 552.
Subject:
Format: E-Resource Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/8958061
Related Items:Contained in (work): Stanford law review
Hidden Bibliographic Details
Notes:"May 2011."
Article reprinted from: Stanford law review, Volume 63, issue 4 (April 2011), pages 869-906.
Includes bibliographical references.
Title from online title page (viewed January 25, 2013).
Summary:"Various doctrines of contract and consumer protection law allow courts to strike down unfair contract terms. A large literature has explored the question which terms should be viewed as unfair, but a related question has never been studied systematically - what provision should replace the vacated unfair term? How should a distributively unfair contract be fixed? This Article demonstrates that the law uses three competing criteria for a replacement provision: (1) the most reasonable term; (2) a punitive term, strongly unfavorable to the overreaching party; and (3) the minimally tolerable term, which preserves the original term as much as is tolerable. The Article explores in depth the third criterion - the minimally tolerable term - under which the smallest intervention that is necessary is applied. This criterion, which has received no prior scholarly notice, is surprisingly prevalent in legal doctrine. The Article surveys its ubiquity and explores its conceptual and normative underpinnings."

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a2200000 i 4500
001 8958061
003 ICU
005 20130128110200.0
006 m o d
007 cr b||||||||||
008 130125s2011 ilu ob 000 0 eng c
035 |a (OCoLC)825119262 
040 |a CGU  |b eng  |e rda  |c CGU 
042 |a pcc 
043 |a n-us--- 
049 |a CGUA 
050 4 |a KF832  |b .B46 2011 
100 1 |a Ben-Shahar, Omri,  |e author.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nr97029221  |1 http://viaf.org/viaf/161139838 
245 1 0 |a Fixing unfair costs /  |c Omri Ben-Shahar. 
264 1 |a [Chicago, Illinois] :  |b Law School, University of Chicago,  |c 2011. 
300 |a 1 online resource (42 pages) 
336 |a text  |2 rdacontent  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/contentTypes/txt 
337 |a computer  |2 rdamedia  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mediaTypes/c 
338 |a online resource  |2 rdacarrier  |0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/cr 
490 1 |a John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper ;  |v no. 552 (2d series) 
500 |a "May 2011." 
500 |a Article reprinted from: Stanford law review, Volume 63, issue 4 (April 2011), pages 869-906. 
504 |a Includes bibliographical references. 
520 |a "Various doctrines of contract and consumer protection law allow courts to strike down unfair contract terms. A large literature has explored the question which terms should be viewed as unfair, but a related question has never been studied systematically - what provision should replace the vacated unfair term? How should a distributively unfair contract be fixed? This Article demonstrates that the law uses three competing criteria for a replacement provision: (1) the most reasonable term; (2) a punitive term, strongly unfavorable to the overreaching party; and (3) the minimally tolerable term, which preserves the original term as much as is tolerable. The Article explores in depth the third criterion - the minimally tolerable term - under which the smallest intervention that is necessary is applied. This criterion, which has received no prior scholarly notice, is surprisingly prevalent in legal doctrine. The Article surveys its ubiquity and explores its conceptual and normative underpinnings." 
588 |a Title from online title page (viewed January 25, 2013). 
650 0 |a Impossibility of performance  |z United States. 
650 0 |a Contracts  |z United States.  |0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2008101022 
650 0 |a Discharge of contracts  |z United States. 
650 7 |a Contracts.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00876969 
650 7 |a Discharge of contracts.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00894834 
650 7 |a Impossibility of performance.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst00968226 
651 7 |a United States.  |2 fast  |0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/fst01204155 
773 0 8 |i Contained in (work):  |t Stanford law review  |g Volume 63, issue 4 (April 2011), pages 869-906  |x 0038-9765  |w (OCoLC)1779979 
830 0 |a John M. Olin Program in Law & Economics working paper ;  |v 2nd ser., no. 552. 
856 4 0 |u http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/552-obs-unfair.pdf 
903 |a HeVa 
929 |a cat 
999 f f |i d70be289-4e21-5abc-8948-917bfe7b32e2  |s d97e4540-05e1-5f27-9615-cff30c893c10 
928 |t Library of Congress classification  |a XXKF832 .B46 2011  |l Online  |c UC-FullText  |u http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/552-obs-unfair.pdf  |g ebooks  |i 7167223