Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=959459
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (158)



 


 



Contracting for Cooperation in Recovery


Gregory Klass


Georgetown University Law Center


Yale Law Journal, Vol. 117, No. 2, 2007
Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper No. 959459
Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 959459

Abstract:     
There is a longstanding debate about whether courts should enforce contract terms purporting to limit the parties' liability for fraud. Less often noticed is that many contracts are designed to incorporate fraud liability, by requiring one party to make representations about her performance that, if false, can satisfy the elements of deceit. Such contractual representations are best understood as members of a broader, hitherto underappreciated category of contract terms: duties designed to increase the other party's chances of recovering for breach. Examples include the duty to keep records, to share information about performance, to permit audits, or not to hide breach. This Article shows that difficulties in proving proximate harm entail that legal liability for the breach of such terms makes a practical difference only when it includes penalties, punitive damages or other extra-compensatory measures. Parties now contract for liability in fraud, where punitive damages are available, because they cannot get these remedies in contract. The Article also argues that most of the costs of extra-compensatory remedies (such as deterring efficient breach) don't apply when they are attached to duties to cooperate in recovery, and that, in many cases, adopting such duties is a better solution to under-enforcement than adopting a damages multiplier.

The practical upshot is a strong argument against rulings, most recently via a broad reading of the economic loss doctrine, that there can be no liability in fraud for lies that are also breaches. Rather than serving the oft-stated goal of protecting the parties' contractually chosen allocation of risk, these rules defeat party choice. Even better, however, would be exceptions to the rules against penalties and punitive damages when those remedies are attached to the breach a duty to cooperate in recovery.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 67

Keywords: contract, fraud, remedies, punitive damages, penalties, penalty clauses, economic loss rule

JEL Classification: K12

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 29, 2006 ; Last revised: February 28, 2012

Suggested Citation

Klass, Gregory, Contracting for Cooperation in Recovery. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 117, No. 2, 2007; Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper No. 959459; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 959459. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959459

Contact Information

Gregory Klass (Contact Author)
Georgetown University Law Center ( email )
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=Faculty&Detail=2165
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,572
Downloads: 175
Download Rank: 102,676
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  158

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.453 seconds