Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 95, December 2009, Issue 8
Making Good on Good Intentions
by Katharine T. Bartlett
The State of State Anti-takeover Law
by Michal Barzuza
Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny
by James Nelson
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
by Andrew Stockment
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia
Essay by Stephen Wills Murphy and Darryl K. Brown

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
Response by Robert F. Turner

Tiered Originality and the Dualism of Copyright Incentives
Response by Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
Response by David E. Graham

[More]
Announcements
December Issue

January Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review announces the results of its September 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 a staff member

December 2004, Volume 90, Issue 8

The Option Element in Contracting
by Avery Wiener Katz
90 Va. L. Rev. 2187 (2004)   View PDF

The law of contracts has often treated options quite differently from other contractual transactions; for example, the characterization of a transaction as an option contract calls forth specially required formalities, but on the other hand often has the effect of releasing parties from doctrinal limitations on their contractual freedom, such as the duty to mitigate damages or the rule that holds excessively high liquidated damages void as penalties. Such differential treatment is challenging to explain from a functional viewpoint, in part because all contracts resemble options to the extent they are enforceable in terms of monetary damages, and in part because contracts that are nominally structured as explicit options can be close economic substitutes for contracts that are nominally structured as unconditional.

This Article sets out a theoretical account of the efficient design of option contracts—one that explains how contracting parties should strike the balance among option premium, option life, and exercise price, in order to maximize the expected surplus from their transaction. It shows that the tradeoffs between these various aspects of option contracts can affect the parties incentives to acquire and disclose information, to invest in relation specific investments, and to take efficient precautions against the event of breach. It then goes on to develop an organizing framework for private parties choosing whether and how to structure their contractual arrangements as options, and for policymakers choosing whether or how to regulate such private choices. In short, the appropriate balance between option premium, option life, and exercise price will depend on the relative importance that the one attaches to these various dimensions of incentives.


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

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   

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