Abstract
Among default remedies for breach of contract, expectation damages are believed superior to property rules such as specific performance since they allow the promisor to breach inefficient contracts when renegotiation is economically infeasible. We examine whether the promisor's ability to accurately determine when to breach is maintained when taking into account the value of time that distinguishes between immediate performance and paying damages in court. We show that if prejudgment interest does not equal the promisor's subjective value from time (e.g., if the court uses the promise's interest rate to fully compensate him), the promisor's breach decision will be distorted. When renegotiation is feasible this problem of excessive breach is mitigated, however asymmetric information about discount factors can lead to a renegotiation process that is doomed to fail. Punitive damages behave similarly. Specific performance without ancillary monetary awards always creates a pie for division between the parties. Ancillary awards for delay are unlikely to change this, but ancillary awards for partial breach make specific performance behave more like expectation damages, although to a lesser degree.
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.
