Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

December 2011, Volume 97, Issue 8

The Myth of Efficient Breach: New Defenses of the Expectation Interest
by Daniel Markovits and Alan Schwartz
97 Va. L. Rev. 1939 (2011)   View PDF

We defend contract law’s preference to protect the expectation with a liability rule against prominent doctrinal and moral critics who argue that a promisee should have a right to specific performance or to a restitutionary remedy. These critics argue that liability rule protection limited to contractual expectations unjustifiably favors promisors, by allowing a promisor to capture the entire gain from unilaterally exiting a contract as long as she compensates her promisee for the profit he would have realized had he received the goods or services the contract described. The critics prefer to vindicate contractual expectations with a property rule or restitution.

We show that a promisee’s gross payoff under the typical contract is invariant to the remedy the law accords him. Current defenders and critics focus on gross payoffs. In this analytic universe, no remedy can be shown to be superior to any other remedy. We argue below that the promisee’s net payoff, for transaction cost reasons, is higher under a contract that protects his expectation with a liability rule. This claim supports the dual performance hypothesis, which holds that promisees typically give their promisors discretion either to trade the goods or services at issue or to make a transfer to the promisee in lieu of trade. A promisor who transfers rather than trades therefore does not breach; rather, she breaches only when she rejects both trade and transfer. On this view of the law, a promisee’s suit to recover his expectation is a specific performance action to enforce the contract’s transfer term. We further explain that this approach renders contract law coherent; it is consistent with the law’s immanent normativity; and it is consistent also with the morality of promising.


Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.