799:
damages by the execution. this, therefore, stated that there should be a prior forecast or prediction of the provable injury resulting to the breach, otherwise, the breach will be unenforceable and then and breaching party will be limited to unconventional damage measures liquidated. The common law courts then continued to revisit the provisions of liquidated damage provision from the "breacher" compensating for injury and losses only, to a consideration of cost and damages incurred during the process of breaching the contract, as well as the benefits that breaching the contract may have already experienced from the contract. As such, the non-breacher of the contract is in the same position as if the contract had undertaken its full performance, thus, establishing and maintaining efficiency value of the rule
904:"successful" breaches and infringement interference. This article discusses why, on a normative level, tort interference would become a component of the better legal framework. Interference in contract rights offers obvious land security for contract rights (conversely, lack of data). When a third party assesses the promiser's results more favorably than the promiser does, processing costs are minimized. On the plus side, the rule of violation interference conforms to the first better model suggested here. The regression study of infringement intrusion proceedings demonstrates even more plainly that the second best factors proposed by effective breach researchers are insufficient to justify the case's result. The variables found in the best model here do have a substantial impact on the case's outcome.
846:
at great cost, and offers me $ .15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $ 1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $ 1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $ .15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $ .15 to him. But it was worth only $ .14 to A – $ .10, what he paid, plus $ .04 ($ 1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus, the breach resulted in a transfer of the 25,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use.
882:
39:
873:
enjoyed if the contract was maintained. However, the seller will retain the cost of the damages that may have been incurred by the time of breaching the contract. The buyers, on the other side, suffers the loss of making close to no profits against their competitor in the instance that a contract was breached. As a result, the final consumer enjoys the most benefits of low prices, or as close to cost as possible.
833:. More sophisticated versions of the theory maintain that parties themselves prefer remedies that incentivize efficient breach, as efficient breach maximizes the gains of trade from transacting. As Richard Posner and Andrew Rosenfeld put the point, "the more efficiently the exchange is structured, the larger is the potential profit of the contract for the parties to divide between them."
795:. According to Black's Law Dictionary, efficient breach theory is "the view that a party should be allowed to breach a contract and pay damages, if doing so would be more economically efficient than performing under the contract." Expectation damages, according to the theory, give parties an incentive to breach when and only when performance is inefficient.
845:
Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $ .10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory
903:
For academics, both moral and constructive, tortious action is vexing because it supports the economic model of "successful violation of contract" by punishing a third party for inducing breach. Nonetheless, academics have discovered a secondary rationale for invention to explain the coexistence of
872:
Other development in the efficiency breach theory include the exhaustion of all possible benefits that would be accrued by consumer in case of breaching of any exclusive contracts in daily business scenarios. The seller in the contract will incur an overall loss of the profits that would have been
863:
Others argue that the costs of litigation relevant to gaining expectation damages from breach would leave one or both of the original parties worse off than if the contract had simply been performed. Also, Posner's hypothetical assumes that the seller is aware of the value the buyer places on the
859:
in his "Contract as
Promise", have argued that morally, A is obligated to honor a contract made with B because A has made a promise. Fried wrote, "The moralist of duty thus posits a general obligation to keep promises, of which the obligation of contract will only be a special case – that special
798:
Judicial laws that govern contractual agreements and the damages to be incurred upon the breach of an agreement have existed since the 15th century. The motivating factor for establishing the standards of efficient breach was to ensure that the agreement fell under the enforceable fixing of the
894:
Scholars in the fields of law and economics have performed a comprehensive study of effective breach of contract cases. According to this
Standard review, where the contract's execution results in a violation of contract, the breach is successful. Each party's overall surplus is negative. By
1014:
24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) ("Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been
895:
categorizing successful violations as a single class of event, recent literature has overlooked the possibility that the violation of finding benefits is distinct from the violation of preventing losses.
300:
810:
in "Breach of
Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency". The theory was named seven years later by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott. Efficient breach theory is commonly associated with
1238:
Goetz, Charles J., and Robert E. Scott. "Liquidated damages, penalties and the just compensation principle: Some notes on an enforcement model and a theory of efficient breach."
305:
573:
678:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1033:
Richard A. Posner & Andrew M. Rosenfeld, Impossibility and
Related Doctrines in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis, 6 J. Legal Stud. 83, 89 (1977).
519:
829:, operating on the premise that legal rules should be designed to give parties an incentive to act in ways that maximize aggregate welfare or achieve
568:
693:
260:
1207:
860:
case in which certain promises have attained legal as well as moral force." It would seem that Fried has since revised his interpretation.
17:
970:"Liquidated Damages, Penalties and the Just Compensation Principle: Some Notes on an Enforcement Model and a Theory of Efficient Breach"
923:"Liquidated Damages, Penalties and the Just Compensation Principle: Some Notes on an Enforcement Model and a Theory of Efficient Breach"
1215:
507:
1043:
1024:"Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach", 77 Colum.L.Rev. 554 (1977).
738:
711:
898:
324:
288:
317:
1228:
Simpson, John, and
Abraham L. Wickelgren. "Naked exclusion, efficient breach, and downstream competition."
583:
173:
841:
Judge
Richard Posner gave this well-known illustration of efficient breach in "Economic Analysis of Law":
68:
1225:', in Philosophical Foundations of Contract Law 362-387 (G. Klass, G. Letsas & P. Saprai eds., 2014)
1263:
1168:
731:
603:
329:
682:
578:
537:
449:
385:
98:
707:
558:
367:
217:
283:
243:
168:
144:
126:
1222:
1258:
802:
The first statement of the theory of efficient breach appears to have been made in 1970 in a
724:
700:
563:
131:
899:
Tortious
Interference with Contract Versus "Efficient" Breach: Theory and Empirical Evidence
1233:
1080:
807:
784:
591:
428:
278:
157:
63:
58:
516:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
8:
780:
347:
238:
103:
83:
1149:
1118:
Bigoni, Maria; Bortolotti, Stefania; Parisi, Francesco; Porat, Ariel (September 2017).
997:
950:
760:
710:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
633:
596:
438:
410:
376:
269:
254:
248:
222:
1186:
1100:
989:
942:
830:
826:
815:
752:
490:
479:
200:
149:
140:
121:
78:
1153:
1176:
1139:
1131:
1092:
981:
934:
792:
788:
513:
395:
357:
352:
195:
178:
405:
135:
112:
811:
651:
542:
473:
458:
206:
53:
1066:
Eisenberg, Melvin, Basic
Contract Law, 8th ed. West Publishing, 2006, 209-214.
763:
and payment of damages by a party who concludes that they would incur greater
1252:
1190:
1104:
993:
946:
856:
764:
442:
190:
163:
93:
185:
646:
641:
628:
419:
73:
1181:
1119:
1096:
1120:"Unbundling Efficient Breach: An Experiment: Unbundling Efficient Breach"
864:
commodity, or the cost of purchase plus the profits the buyer will make.
484:
390:
295:
212:
1144:
818:
school of thought. Posner explains his views in his majority opinion in
1243:
1211:
1135:
1001:
969:
954:
922:
825:
Simple versions of the efficient breach theory employed arguments from
803:
776:
686:
669:
88:
637:
312:
38:
985:
938:
881:
467:
362:
30:
433:
1081:"Naked Exclusion, Efficient Breach, and Downstream Competition"
889:
1117:
623:
1044:"Charles Fried, Contract as Promise, 2.0 — Yonathan Arbel"
613:
1234:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.97.4.1305
703:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
775:
The theory of efficient breach seeks to explain the
706:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the
American
520:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
1078:
1250:
675:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1079:Simpson, John; Wickelgren, Abraham L. (2007).
783:for breach of contract, as distinguished from
732:
968:Goetz, Charles J.; Scott, Robert E. (1977).
921:Goetz, Charles J.; Scott, Robert E. (1977).
770:
1173:Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization
712:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
967:
920:
890:Unbundling Efficient Breach: An Experiment
739:
725:
1216:The American Journal of International Law
1180:
1166:
1143:
880:
836:
1169:"Efficient Material Breach of Contract"
14:
1251:
867:
508:Duty of honest contractual performance
696:of International Commercial Contracts
1244:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1121823
1074:
1072:
820:Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.
685:and other civil codes based on the
24:
1167:Ganglmair, Bernhard (2017-01-07).
1124:Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
876:
767:by performing under the contract.
25:
1275:
1069:
822:, 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985).
751:In legal theory, particularly in
510:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
325:Enforcement of foreign judgments
289:Hague Choice of Court Convention
37:
1160:
1232:97, no. 4 (2007): 1305-1320.
1111:
1060:
1036:
1027:
1018:
1008:
961:
914:
318:Singapore Mediation Convention
13:
1:
1201:
692:5 Explicitly rejected by the
459:Quasi-contractual obligations
850:
18:Efficient breach of contract
7:
1242:77, no. 4 (1977): 554-594.
10:
1280:
330:Hague Judgments Convention
771:Development of the theory
681:4 Specific to the German
1230:American Economic Review
1085:American Economic Review
907:
386:Anticipatory repudiation
136:unequal bargaining power
708:Uniform Commercial Code
683:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
368:Third-party beneficiary
340:Rights of third parties
218:Accord and satisfaction
886:
848:
439:Liquidated, stipulated
284:Forum selection clause
169:Frustration of purpose
1097:10.1257/aer.97.4.1305
884:
843:
837:Posner's illustration
701:Canadian contract law
69:Abstraction principle
808:Robert L. Birmingham
785:specific performance
530:Related areas of law
429:Specific performance
279:Choice of law clause
244:Contract of adhesion
158:Culpa in contrahendo
64:Meeting of the minds
59:Offer and acceptance
1240:Columbia Law Review
1212:Pacta Sunt Servanda
1182:10.1093/jleo/eww020
974:Columbia Law Review
927:Columbia Law Review
868:Other contributions
781:expectation damages
694:UNIDROIT Principles
468:Promissory estoppel
348:Privity of contract
301:New York Convention
261:UNIDROIT Principles
104:Collateral contract
99:Implication-in-fact
84:Invitation to treat
1136:10.1111/jels.12154
887:
779:'s preference for
761:breach of contract
514:Duty of good faith
411:Fundamental breach
377:Breach of contract
306:UNCITRAL Model Law
270:Dispute resolution
255:Contra proferentem
249:Integration clause
223:Exculpatory clause
1264:Law and economics
831:Pareto efficiency
827:welfare economics
816:Law and Economics
753:law and economics
749:
748:
592:England and Wales
500:Duties of parties
491:Negotiorum gestio
480:Unjust enrichment
201:Statute of frauds
150:Unconscionability
122:Misrepresentation
79:Mirror image rule
16:(Redirected from
1271:
1223:Efficient Breach
1221:Gregory Klass, '
1195:
1194:
1184:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1147:
1115:
1109:
1108:
1091:(4): 1305–1320.
1076:
1067:
1064:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1040:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1005:
965:
959:
958:
918:
885:Ranges of Breach
793:punitive damages
789:reliance damages
757:efficient breach
741:
734:
727:
569:China (mainland)
538:Conflict of laws
401:Efficient breach
396:Exclusion clause
196:Illusory promise
179:Impracticability
41:
27:
26:
21:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1249:
1248:
1214:' (1959) 53(4)
1204:
1199:
1198:
1165:
1161:
1116:
1112:
1077:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1052:
1050:
1048:New Private Law
1042:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1013:
1009:
986:10.2307/1121823
966:
962:
939:10.2307/1121823
919:
915:
910:
901:
892:
879:
877:Main Literature
870:
853:
839:
773:
759:is a voluntary
745:
716:
588:United Kingdom
551:By jurisdiction
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1277:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1247:
1246:
1236:
1226:
1219:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1159:
1130:(3): 527–547.
1110:
1068:
1059:
1035:
1026:
1017:
1007:
960:
912:
911:
909:
906:
900:
897:
891:
888:
878:
875:
869:
866:
855:Some, such as
852:
849:
838:
835:
812:Richard Posner
772:
769:
747:
746:
744:
743:
736:
729:
721:
718:
717:
715:
714:
704:
699:6 Specific to
697:
690:
679:
676:
673:
668:1 Specific to
665:
662:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
649:
644:
631:
626:
618:
617:
609:
608:
607:
606:
601:
600:
599:
594:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
561:
553:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
543:Commercial law
540:
532:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
511:
502:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
487:
482:
477:
474:Quantum meruit
470:
462:
461:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
446:
445:
431:
423:
422:
416:
415:
414:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
380:
379:
373:
372:
371:
370:
365:
360:
355:
350:
342:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
322:
321:
320:
310:
309:
308:
303:
293:
292:
291:
281:
273:
272:
266:
265:
264:
263:
258:
251:
246:
241:
239:Parol evidence
233:
232:
231:Interpretation
228:
227:
226:
225:
220:
215:
210:
207:Non est factum
203:
198:
193:
188:
183:
182:
181:
176:
171:
161:
154:
153:
152:
138:
129:
124:
116:
115:
109:
108:
107:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
71:
66:
61:
56:
48:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1276:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1254:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1163:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1114:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1073:
1063:
1049:
1045:
1039:
1030:
1021:
1011:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
964:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
917:
913:
905:
896:
883:
874:
865:
861:
858:
857:Charles Fried
847:
842:
834:
832:
828:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
800:
796:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
768:
766:
765:economic loss
762:
758:
754:
742:
737:
735:
730:
728:
723:
722:
720:
719:
713:
709:
705:
702:
698:
695:
691:
688:
684:
680:
677:
674:
672:jurisdictions
671:
667:
666:
664:
663:
659:
658:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
639:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
610:
605:
604:United States
602:
598:
595:
593:
590:
589:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
550:
549:
544:
541:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
529:
528:
521:
518:
517:
515:
512:
509:
506:
505:
504:
503:
499:
498:
493:
492:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
475:
471:
469:
466:
465:
464:
463:
460:
457:
456:
451:
448:
444:
443:penal damages
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:Money damages
432:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
418:
417:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
375:
374:
369:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
339:
338:
331:
328:
327:
326:
323:
319:
316:
315:
314:
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
268:
267:
262:
259:
257:
256:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
229:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:
213:Unclean hands
211:
209:
208:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
187:
184:
180:
177:
175:
174:Impossibility
172:
170:
167:
166:
165:
164:Force majeure
162:
160:
159:
155:
151:
148:
147:
146:
145:public policy
142:
139:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
111:
110:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
94:Consideration
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
50:
49:
45:
44:
40:
36:
35:
32:
29:
28:
19:
1259:Contract law
1239:
1229:
1172:
1162:
1145:11585/606145
1127:
1123:
1113:
1088:
1084:
1062:
1051:. Retrieved
1047:
1038:
1029:
1020:
1015:rendered.").
1010:
977:
973:
963:
930:
926:
916:
902:
893:
871:
862:
854:
844:
840:
824:
819:
801:
797:
774:
756:
750:
647:Criminal law
629:Property law
584:Saudi Arabia
489:
472:
400:
253:
205:
156:
74:Posting rule
31:Contract law
806:article by
485:Restitution
296:Arbitration
1253:Categories
1202:References
1175:: eww020.
1053:2015-10-16
980:(4): 559.
933:(4): 544.
804:law review
777:common law
687:pandectist
670:common law
450:Rescission
358:Delegation
353:Assignment
141:Illegality
89:Firm offer
1208:H Wehberg
1191:8756-6222
1105:0002-8282
994:0010-1958
947:0010-1958
851:Criticism
689:tradition
559:Australia
406:Deviation
313:Mediation
46:Formation
1154:53623450
814:and the
652:Evidence
624:Tort law
597:Scotland
420:Remedies
363:Novation
186:Hardship
113:Defences
54:Capacity
1002:1121823
955:1121823
642:estates
574:Ireland
191:Set-off
132:Threats
127:Mistake
1189:
1152:
1103:
1000:
992:
953:
945:
640:, and
638:trusts
612:Other
564:Canada
1150:S2CID
998:JSTOR
951:JSTOR
908:Notes
791:, or
660:Notes
634:Wills
616:areas
579:India
441:, or
391:Cover
1187:ISSN
1101:ISSN
990:ISSN
943:ISSN
143:and
134:and
1218:775
1210:, '
1177:doi
1140:hdl
1132:doi
1093:doi
982:doi
935:doi
614:law
1255::
1185:.
1171:.
1148:.
1138:.
1128:14
1126:.
1122:.
1099:.
1089:97
1087:.
1083:.
1071:^
1046:.
996:.
988:.
978:77
976:.
972:.
949:.
941:.
931:77
929:.
925:.
787:,
755:,
636:,
1193:.
1179::
1156:.
1142::
1134::
1107:.
1095::
1056:.
1004:.
984::
957:.
937::
740:e
733:t
726:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
