Abstract
This article considers the character of contractual liability and its implications for theories of contract law. Contractual liability has seemed to legal theorists to stand in need of explanation because it is ‘strict’: a contracting party may be answerable for breach regardless of whether her conduct is faulty. In efforts to account for this approach, theorists have invoked a number of well-known general theories of contract, including Holmesian, economic, moral, voluntarist (or choice-based) and rights-based theories. The article contends that none of the existing theories is fully satisfactory. To develop an alternative account, the article suggests we should reconsider the nature of contractual liability in the common law, attending more closely to certain features that theorists have so far tended to overlook. Having done this we will be able to see that another very well-known general theory is capable of accounting for the standard of contractual liability: the theory of contract as promise.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
