Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Contracts: Contracts are legally enforceable agreements between two or more parties that create mutual obligations. It is a promise to do or not do something. The terms of a contract must be agreed upon by both parties. See also Contract theory._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Psychology on Contracts - Dictionary of Arguments
Parisi I 147 Contracts/Social psychology/Nadler/Mueller: A. Economic theories: Economic theory assumes that people are motivated by rational wealth maximization and nothing else. Thus, law and economics scholars argue that promisors are indifferent between performance and breach, and that if a promisor can make any extra money from breaching a contract, she will do so. >Rationality. B. Psychology: As a descriptive matter, these assumptions are sometimes undermined by non-monetary values like reciprocity, fairness, and promise keeping. Parties to contracts behave in accordance with shared community norms, which shape what they think the law of contracts entails (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2012)(1). Intuition: People tend to assume that the applicable legal rule is the one that matches their intuitions. For example, about one-third of Americans believe that there is a legal duty to assist someone in distress; this percentage is constant regardless of whether the applicable law in the state imposes this duty or not (Darley, Carlsmith, and Robinson, 2001)(2). Contracts: With regard to contracts, people tend believe that all terms are legally enforceable (even though not all types of clauses are) (Stolle and Slain, 1997)(3), and that specific performance and punitive damages are common remedies (they generally are not) (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2010). Morality: Parties to contracts imbue those contracts with morality, even when the law governing the contract does not reflect that morality. Most people think of a contract as a kind of promise, and that breaking a contract is a moral violation deserving of punishment over and above the damages associated with the breach (Wilkinson-Ryan and Baron, 2009)(4). Contract breach: The promise-keeping framework that governs most people's perceptions of contract obligations sometimes leads to a hesitance to breach even in cases of efficient breach (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2010)(5). Indeed, the non-breaching party often feels "suckered" by breach, and the anger and embarrassment felt leads to inflated damages assessments (Wilkinson-Ryan and Hoffman, 2010)(6). Fairness: Norms of fairness govern the behaviors of contracting parties. People are more willing to breach a contract when they perceive the other party to have behaved badly - such as walking away from an underwater mortgage after it came to light that the bank harmed communities with subprime loans (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2011)(7). Sold contracts: Selling a contract weakens its moral force: parties are less likely to perform in the face of economic incentives to default when the contract is assigned (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2012(1). 1. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess (2012). "Legal Promise and Psychological Contract." Wake Forest L. Rev. 47:843. 2. Darley, John M., Kevin M. Carlsmith, and Paul H. Robinson (2001). " The ex ante function of the criminal law." Law and Society Review 35: 165-190. 3. Stolle, Dennis P. and Andrew J. Slain (1997). "Standard Form Contracts and Contract Schemas: A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Exculpatory Clauses on Consumers' Propensity to Sue." Behavioral Sciences and the Law 15:83-94. 4. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess and Jonathan Baron (2009). "Moral Judgment and Moral Heuristics in Breach of Contract." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6(2):405-423. 5. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess (2010). "Do Liquidated Damages Encourage Breach? A Psychological Experiment." Michigan Law Review 108:633-671. 6. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess and David A. Hoffman (2010). "Breach is for Suckers." Vanderbilt Law Review 63: 1003. 7. Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess (2011). "Breaching the Mortgage Contract: The Behavioral Economics of Strategic Default." Vanderbilt Law Review 64(5): 1547. Nadler, Janice and Pam A. Mueller. „Social Psychology and the Law“. In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Social Psychology Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Social Psychology
> Counter arguments in relation to Contracts
