Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=664682
 
 

Footnotes (185)



 


 



Allegheny College Revisited: Cardozo, Consideration, and Formalism in Context


Curtis Bridgeman


Florida State University


UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 39, 2005
FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 144

Abstract:     
Allegheny College is a bit of an oddity. It deals with a narrow issue (the enforceability of promises to make donations to charities), and Cardozo's majority opinion is almost universally derided as at best confusing and at worst outright devious. Yet it is still included in most contracts casebooks and taught by most contracts professors, usually as an introduction to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In this paper, I defend the opinion - something almost no one has done without severe qualification - and argue that most of the criticisms are the result of a misguided emphasis on promissory estoppel. Although most scholars now agree that the case is decided on consideration grounds, the invocation of promissory estoppel is usually explained away as some sort of rhetorical flourish or deceit, probably designed ultimately to undermine the doctrine of consideration. I take on some of this scholarship, and then argue by contrast that the reference to promissory estoppel is not meant even to suggest that promissory estoppel controls in this case, but rather to show that whether bargaining has taken place (and therefore whether a promise is supported by consideration) depends very much on context. The key move in Cardozo's opinion is not only finding the return implied promise by the college, but also claiming that Ms. Johnston made her promise in order to induce Allegheny College to obligate itself, a point that has gone almost unnoticed in the scholarship. Perhaps more importantly, I argue that there is a larger lesson for us here about contracts jurisprudence. Finding bargaining in such an instance would likely be an unwarranted stretch in a normal business setting, but it makes perfect sense in the context of charitable subscriptions. I argue that this sensitivity to context is of a piece with two of Cardozo's other famous opinions, Wood v. Lucy and DeCicco v. Schweizer. There is room between the caricature of formalism as completely blind to particular facts and the caricature of realism as completely unbound by legal rules. Cardozo displays a jurisprudence that shows respect for the formalities of contract law, but insists on applying those rules in a way that understands transactions the way the parties themselves did.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

Keywords: Cardozo, contracts, Allegheny College, jurisprudence, formalism, consideration, Wood, DeCicco

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 9, 2005 ; Last revised: June 21, 2008

Suggested Citation

Bridgeman, Curtis, Allegheny College Revisited: Cardozo, Consideration, and Formalism in Context. UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 39, 2005; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 144. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=664682 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.664682

Contact Information

Curtis Bridgeman (Contact Author)
Florida State University ( email )
Tallahasse, FL 32306
United States
850-644-6075 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,793
Downloads: 350
Download Rank: 47,256
Footnotes:  185

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.249 seconds