Footnotes (251)



Language, Deals and Standards: The Future of XML Contracts

Lawrence A. Cunningham

George Washington University

Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming
Boston College Law School Research Paper No. 93

eXtensible Markup Language (XML) structures information in documentary systems ranging from financial reports to medical records and business contracts. XML standards for specific applications are developed spontaneously by self-appointed technologists or entrepreneurs. XML's social and economic stakes are considerable, especially when developed for the private law of contracts. XML can reduce transaction costs but also limit the range of contractual expression and redefine the nature of law practice. So reliance on spontaneous development may be sub-optimal and identification of a more formal public standard setting model necessary. To exploit XML's advantages while minimizing risks, this Article envisions creating a publicly oriented foundation to set XML-based standards for the private law of corporate contracts. The Article's specific inquiry concerning corporate contracts illuminates XML's broader implications, making the standard-setting model it contributes adaptable to other contexts.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 56

Keywords: eXtensible Markup Languag (XML), contract law, spontaneous development, corporate contracts, private law, public-private standard setting, corporate law, technological innovation

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: May 5, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Cunningham, Lawrence A., Language, Deals and Standards: The Future of XML Contracts. Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming; Boston College Law School Research Paper No. 93. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=900616

Contact Information

Lawrence A. Cunningham (Contact Author)
George Washington University ( email )
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
202-994-0732 (Phone)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 8,875
Downloads: 466
Download Rank: 46,800
Footnotes:  251
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper