Abstract

Abstract This article critically engages with Peter Benson’s theory of contract law. It explores whether his juridical conception of contract as a transfer of rights, which is governed by the contract law’s internal principles of transactional justice, can be reconciled with fundamental rights. The article argues that the conventional distinction between the direct and indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights is problematic because it does not make it unequivocal which body of law – fundamental rights or contract law – substantially governs the relations between contracting parties and determines the outcome of disputes between them. The answer to this fundamental question, however, is crucial for the stability of Benson’s theory of contract law. Drawing on the European experience, the article shows that the relationship between fundamental rights and contract law can take the form of the subordination of contract law to fundamental rights or the complementarity between the two. While the latter is compatible with Benson’s theory, the former is in tension with it. For the sake of conceptual clarity, therefore, it is useful to distinguish between three forms of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights in contract law – direct horizontal effect, strong indirect horizontal effect, and weak indirect horizontal effect.

Highlights

  • In his book Justice in Transactions,[1] Peter Benson develops a juridical conception of contract as a transfer of rights between the contracting parties as free and equal persons

  • While direct horizontal effect and strong indirect horizontal effect lead to the subordination of contract law to fundamental rights, weak indirect horizontal effect implies the complementarity between the two

  • What does this account of the interplay between fundamental rights and contract law in European legal systems tell us about the possibility of reconciliation between Peter Benson’ juridical conception of contract and fundamental rights? Can fundamental rights and contract law, to use Benson’s words, ‘mutually support each other as distinct but integrated aspects of a more complete scheme of ... justice’23? In the first place, it has become apparent that the answer to this question depends on the relationship between fundamental rights and contract law in a particular legal system

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In his book Justice in Transactions,[1] Peter Benson develops a juridical conception of contract as a transfer of rights between the contracting parties as free and equal persons. ‘Contract law – from its principles of formation to those governing fairness and remedies – is complete within its own framework and (...), within its purely non-distributive and transactional values, it can answer the main contractual issues that are essential to establishing, interpreting, and enforcing contractual relations’.2 Distributive principles, such as fundamental rights, can only indirectly constrain individual transactions governed by contract law, without directly displacing or derogating from its own internal principles of transactional justice.[3]. Cherednychenko, ‘Subordinating Contract Law to Fundamental Rights: Towards a Major Breakthrough or towards Walking in Circles?’, in Grundmann, n 5 above, 35

Subordination
Complementarity
Concluding Remarks
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call