Contract and Innovation: The Limited Role of Generalist Courts in the Evolution of Novel Contractual Terms

40 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2012 Last revised: 2 Oct 2013

See all articles by Ronald J. Gilson

Ronald J. Gilson

Stanford Law School; Columbia Law School; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Stanford Law School

Charles Sabel

Columbia University - Columbia Law School

Robert E. Scott

Columbia University - Law School

Date Written: June 28, 2012

Abstract

In developing a contractual response to changes in the economic environment, parties choose the method by which their innovation will be adapted to the particulars of their context. These choices are driven centrally by the thickness of the relevant market and the uncertainty related to that market. In turn, the parties’ choice of method will shape how generalist courts can best support the parties’ innovation and the novel regimes they envision. In this essay, we argue that contractual innovation does not comes to courts incrementally, but instead reaches the courts later in the innovation’s evolution and more fully fledged than the standard picture contemplates. Highly stylized, the trajectory of innovation in contract we find is this: Private actors respond to exogenous shocks in their economic environment by changing existing structures or procedures to make them efficient under the new circumstances. The innovating parties stabilize their newly emergent practices through a variety of regimes, both bilateral and multilateral, whose goal is to establish the context through which the innovation is implemented. It is only at this point that courts step in when a dispute is presented to them. If contract innovation does indeed reach generalist courts through the mediating institution of these contextualizing regimes, then our argument follows directly: If a central goal of contract adjudication is to enforce the context the parties have provided, then the courts’ willingness to defer to the context the parties give them will put the law more directly in the service of innovation.

Suggested Citation

Gilson, Ronald J. and Sabel, Charles Frederick and Scott, Robert E., Contract and Innovation: The Limited Role of Generalist Courts in the Evolution of Novel Contractual Terms (June 28, 2012). New York University Law Review, Forthcoming, Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 424, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 429, ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 193/2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2095714 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2095714

Ronald J. Gilson (Contact Author)

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
650-723-0614 (Phone)
650-725-0253 (Fax)

Columbia Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
212-854-1655 (Phone)
212-854-7946 (Fax)

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

c/o the Royal Academies of Belgium
Rue Ducale 1 Hertogsstraat
1000 Brussels
Belgium

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
650-723-0614 (Phone)
650-725-0253 (Fax)

Charles Frederick Sabel

Columbia University - Columbia Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
212-854-2618 (Phone)
212-854-7946 (Fax)

Robert E. Scott

Columbia University - Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States
212-854-0072 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
428
Abstract Views
3,895
Rank
124,465
PlumX Metrics