Courts and the Tort-Contract Boundary in Product Liability

Paul H. Rubin

Emory University - Department of Economics

The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract

In this Article I address the appropriate source of liability in cases of injury between parties with a pre-injury contractual relationship. This applies to product liability (for direct purchasers, not for injured third parties) and also to medical malpractice. Since the parties do have a pre-injury relationship, they could contract ex ante for damages and liability standards through warranties and disclaimers; if they did so, then they would probably choose standards so that many fewer cases would be filed. The current legal system, behaving consistently with arguments made by Atiyah and Gilmore, instead treats these injuries as torts and handles them through product liability, leading to many additional cases. This means that consumers and producers are forced to accept the terms imposed by the courts, and there is no room for variation. The literature arguing for contractual treatments of such injuries is voluminous as is the literature arguing for the now traditional treatment as a tort, a very small sample of which is discussed below.

JEL Classification: K1

Not Available For Download

Date posted: April 9, 1999  

Suggested Citation

Rubin, Paul H., Courts and the Tort-Contract Boundary in Product Liability. The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=157468

Contact Information

Paul H. Rubin (Contact Author)
Emory University - Department of Economics ( email )
1602 Fishburne Drive
Atlanta, GA 30322
United States
404-931-0493 (Phone)
630-604-9609 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.economics.emory.edu/Rubi.htm
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 571