Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 96, June 2010, Issue 4
Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty
by Amanda Frost and Stefanie A. Lindquist
Race, Sex, and Rulemaking: Administrative Constitutionalism and the Workplace, 1960 to the Present
by Sophia Z. Lee
Prospects for Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Under State Law
by Stephen Murphy
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Good Intentions Matter
Reply by Katharine T. Bartlett

State Judicial Elections and the Limits of Calibrating Access to the Federal Courts
Response by Michael E. Solimine

The Immortality of Equitable Balancing
Response by David Schoenbrod

Does the Structure of the Franchise Tax Matter?
Reply by Michal Barzuza

The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act
Essay by David Horton

Placebo Statutes?: Sarbanes-Oxley and Ethics Code Disclosures
Response by Donald C. Langevoort

[More]
Announcements
September Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review Welcomes New Members from the Class of 2012

Notes Accepted from May 2010 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.