According to the doctrine of causa, there are two reasons (causae) why the parties would enter into an agreement and the law would enforce one: to get an equivalent in return for what one gave and to confer a benefit on the other party gratuitously. This doctrine, formulated on the basis of Aristotelian ideas of voluntary commutative justice and liberality, was accepted by civil law jurists through the 18th century. In the early 19th century, common law writers identified the first kind of causa with the consideration required in an action of assumpsit. The doctrine was incorporated in the French Civil Code of 1804. It ceased to make sense, however, because the idea of equality in exchange ceased to make sense. Anglo-American jurists defined consideration and French jurists defined causa or cause to exclude the idea of equality or fairness in exchange. Yet in both countries, the courts have applied these doctrines to give relief when an exchange was unfair. Although French legislation abolished the doctrine of cause in 2016, it preserved the results the court had reached. The recurring concern for fairness in exchange is evidence that one cannot do without the idea of contract of exchange as commutative justice. To understand contemporary contract law, we need to revisit the moral foundation that inspired causa, contract as voluntary commutative justice.

The misconceived doctrine of causa and the incoherence of contemporary contract law

Gordley, James;Jiang, Hao
In corso di stampa

Abstract

According to the doctrine of causa, there are two reasons (causae) why the parties would enter into an agreement and the law would enforce one: to get an equivalent in return for what one gave and to confer a benefit on the other party gratuitously. This doctrine, formulated on the basis of Aristotelian ideas of voluntary commutative justice and liberality, was accepted by civil law jurists through the 18th century. In the early 19th century, common law writers identified the first kind of causa with the consideration required in an action of assumpsit. The doctrine was incorporated in the French Civil Code of 1804. It ceased to make sense, however, because the idea of equality in exchange ceased to make sense. Anglo-American jurists defined consideration and French jurists defined causa or cause to exclude the idea of equality or fairness in exchange. Yet in both countries, the courts have applied these doctrines to give relief when an exchange was unfair. Although French legislation abolished the doctrine of cause in 2016, it preserved the results the court had reached. The recurring concern for fairness in exchange is evidence that one cannot do without the idea of contract of exchange as commutative justice. To understand contemporary contract law, we need to revisit the moral foundation that inspired causa, contract as voluntary commutative justice.
In corso di stampa
Gordley, James; Jiang, Hao
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Misconceived doctrine of causa.docx

non disponibili

Descrizione: article
Tipologia: Documento in Pre-print (Pre-print document)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 111.51 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
111.51 kB Microsoft Word XML   Visualizza/Apri
Gordley & Jiang Publication Agreement.docx-2.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: Publication agreement
Tipologia: Allegato per valutazione Bocconi (Attachment for Bocconi evaluation)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 277.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
277.71 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11565/4055300
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact