|
||||
|
||||
New Rules for Promissory Fraud
Ian Ayres Yale Law School; Yale School of Management Gregory Klass Georgetown University - Law Center Arizona Law Review, Vol. 48, 2006 Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 331 Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper No. 936869 Abstract: This article summarizes our recommended reforms to the law of promissory fraud. We present these recommendations as a Draft Prestatement of the Law of Insincere Promising. The basic propositions of the Prestatement are taken, with some modification, from our book, Insincere Promises: The Law of Misrepresented Intent (2005). This article adds extensive comments, in the style of the Restatements, and a prose introduction identifying three reforms we deem most important. First, courts should drop their insistence that every promise represents an intent to perform, and treat that representation instead as a default. Second, courts faced with claims of promissory fraud should pay more attention to scienter. This means both that promissory fraud claimants should be required to produce separate evidence of intent or recklessness, and that courts should recognize the largely overlooked possibility of negligent promissory misrepresentation. Finally, courts should acknowledge that promissory representations of intent are material only because they say something about the objective probability of performance, and should interpret a representation of intent to perform as saying, absent evidence to the contrary, that there is at least a fifty-percent chance that the promisor will perform.
Keywords: promissory fraud, contract, fraud JEL Classifications: K12, K13 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: October 12, 2006 ; Last revised: December 19, 2006Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo3 in 0.187 seconds.