Impossibility and Related Doctrines in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis
Impossibility and Related Doctrines in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis
复制标题
合同法中的不可能性及相关原则：经济分析
DOI：
10.1086/467564
复制
发表时间：
1977
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Andrew M. Rosenfield
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Posner;Andrew M. Rosenfield
通常情况下，合同一方未能履行要求他履行的义务即构成违约，他应向另一方承担损害赔偿责任。但有时不履行合同是可以原谅的，合同被称为解除而不是违约。本研究运用经济理论来研究合同法中三个密切相关的理论，即“不可能”、“不实际”和“挫折”，以履行合同。这些并不是不履行合同的唯一借口。在其他的借口中，没有在本研究中讨论，是密切相关的相互错误学说（有时被称为“先行不可能”）。与此相关且仅在此附带讨论的是Hadley v. Baxendale1的原则，该原则限制了违约方对违约所造成的可预见损害的责任。关于这一套理论，有大量的法律文献，由于缺乏一个更包容的术语，我们有时将其统称为“不可能”。接下来，本文的主要结论将在IA部分进行总结，而IB部分则从经济学的角度对该主题进行分析第二部分将经济分析应用于主要案例和
O RDINARILY the failure of one party to a contract to fulfill the performance required of him constitutes a breach of contract for which he is liable in damages to the other party. But sometimes the failure to perform is excused and the contract is said to be discharged rather than breached. This study uses economic theory to investigate three closely related doctrines in the law of contracts that operate to discharge a contract: "impossibility," "impracticability," and "frustration." These are not the only excuses for nonperformance of a contract. Among other excuses, not discussed in this study, is the closely related doctrine of mutual mistake (sometimes called "antecedent impossibility"). Also related, and only incidentally discussed herein, is the doctrine of Hadley v. Baxendale1 limiting the liability of the breaching party to the foreseeable damages of the breach. There is an extensive legal literature on the set of doctrines that, for want of a more inclusive term, we shall sometimes lump together under the name "impossibility." The main conclusions of this literature are summarized in Part IA, next, while Part IB analyzes the subject from the standpoint of economics.2 Part II applies the economic analysis to the leading cases and