What Boilerplate Said: A Response to Omri Ben-Shahar (and a Diagnosis)
Margaret Jane Radin
University of Michigan Law School; University of Toronto Faculty of Law
February 26, 2014
U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 392
U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 14-006
This essay responds to Omri Ben-Shahar’s review of my book, Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Law (Princeton 2013). Ben-Shahar’s review (available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2255161) unfortunately does not convey the nature of this book to possible readers. His preconceptions – reflecting primarily what I call “old-school Chicago”--apparently caused him to believe that some strong version of “autonomy” was the focus of my book. Instead, the book’s purpose is to gather together a broad range of ideas relevant to boilerplate, in order to encourage readers to consider opportunities for improving our theory and practice. It makes detailed suggestions for improving our treatment of boilerplate, including chapters on how judges could improve on unconscionability and public policy decisions, how market initiatives might be harnessed to cabin boilerplate excesses, and how bad boilerplate might be regulated by tort law rather than contract law. Boilerplate does investigate the disjuncture between contract theories’ various commitments to voluntariness and the realities of contemporary practice with respect to mass-market boilerplate; but it does so as backdrop to its main purpose.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 13
Date posted: February 28, 2014 ; Last revised: March 12, 2014
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.297 seconds