Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1618925
 
 

References (19)



 


 



Interpreting Boilerplate


Kevin E. Davis


New York University School of Law

June 1, 2010

NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 10-21

Abstract:     
Economists often presume that the costs of drafting contracts are directly related to the ‘completeness’ of the contracts in question. This may be a reasonable presumption when contractual documents are drafted from scratch. But anyone who has drafted a contract knows that it is typically much easier to proceed by finding and copying an existing widely used document (“boilerplate”), even one that generates a very detailed contract, than to draft from scratch. This observation has important implications for debates about the optimal method of interpretation. This paper analyses the merits of alternative ways of interpreting contractual documents when parties use boilerplate. Legal practices such as gap-filling, the use of extrinsic evidence, uniform laws, and allowing parties to choose the method used to interpret their documents are examined. One notable finding is that it is not necessarily desirable to allow parties to choose the method of interpretation. The analysis highlights the potential importance of the stock of boilerplate available to contracting parties as a factor that determines the impact of contract law.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 25

JEL Classification: K12, L14

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: June 1, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Davis, Kevin E., Interpreting Boilerplate (June 1, 2010). NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 10-21. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1618925 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1618925

Contact Information

Kevin E. Davis (Contact Author)
New York University School of Law ( email )
40 Washington Square South
Vanderbilt Hall, Room 335
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States
212-992-8843 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 566
Downloads: 135
Download Rank: 127,163
References:  19
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.375 seconds