Must Formalism Be Defended Empirically?
University of Chicago, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 70
42 Pages Posted: 10 Mar 1999
Date Written: March 1999
Abstract
This paper urges that one of the great, quasi-theological debates in legal theory depends on answers to empirical questions. The debate is whether courts should be "formalistic," that is, whether they should interpret statutory terms in accordance with their literal meaning, or whether they should be permitted to reject literal meaning by reference to "purposes," or canons of constructions, or considerations of policy. Any good answer turns on what approach will minimize decision costs and error costs, and that depends on empirical judgments about the likely performance of courts and legislatures. There is discussion as well of information-eliciting and market-mimicking default rules in the interpretation of contracts and statutes.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Simplicity and Complexity in Contracts
By Karen Eggleston, Eric A. Posner, ...
-
Controlling Agencies with Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Positive Political Theory Perspective
-
A Paradox of Spontaneous Formation: The Evolution of Private Legal Systems
-
Transaction Costs and Property Rights: Or Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
-
Winning the Art Lottery: The Economic Returns to the Ganz Collection