Consumer Contracts and the Restatement Project

D. McGowan
{"title":"Consumer Contracts and the Restatement Project","authors":"D. McGowan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3446802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent controversy over the American Law Institute’s draft Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts (the “Draft”) raises four questions: (i) What is the state of basic contract principles such as formation or unconscionability with respect to consumer contracts; (ii) does the Draft get the existing law right; (iii) how much can contract law do to give consumers a leg up in the modern economy; and (iv) should the Draft do more? \n \nThe positive critiques of the Draft are weak. Cases that do not contradict the Draft are cited as showing that it is wrong, district court opinions that have not even been adopted in their home circuit are praised as “leading cases,” and the rules of formation are decried as unsettled and messy, when the standard is clear. The answers to questions (i) and (ii) are that the cases are reasonably settled on principles that are accurately reflected in the Draft. \n \nNormative questions (iii) and (iv) are interesting and hard. Critiques of the Draft presume that contract law could do a lot to help consumers but that the Draft would thwart such efforts. There are limits to what contract law can do to give consumers a leg up, however, and the Draft does not narrow those limits. Sweeping statements, such as that the Draft “if adopted, would drive a dagger through consumers’ rights,” are excessive, even if limited only to doctrines such as unconscionability. Critics are notably short on cases that go their way under current law but which would come out differently under the Draft. \n \nThe Restatement project presumes the exercise of nonpartisan judgment. Some criticisms of the draft, notably those contained in a letter signed by numerous state attorneys general, are more political tracts than analytic critiques. Because the Draft does a good job analyzing and distilling the law, the real question in this debate is whether the ALI and the Restatement project as a whole can withstand efforts, such as the AGs’ Letter, to use the tools and standards of retail politics to defeat the analytic approach of the Draft. To the extent such efforts succeed, the Restatement concept as a whole will fail.","PeriodicalId":269248,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Miscellaneous Consumer Matters (Topic)","volume":"214 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Miscellaneous Consumer Matters (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3446802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A recent controversy over the American Law Institute’s draft Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts (the “Draft”) raises four questions: (i) What is the state of basic contract principles such as formation or unconscionability with respect to consumer contracts; (ii) does the Draft get the existing law right; (iii) how much can contract law do to give consumers a leg up in the modern economy; and (iv) should the Draft do more? The positive critiques of the Draft are weak. Cases that do not contradict the Draft are cited as showing that it is wrong, district court opinions that have not even been adopted in their home circuit are praised as “leading cases,” and the rules of formation are decried as unsettled and messy, when the standard is clear. The answers to questions (i) and (ii) are that the cases are reasonably settled on principles that are accurately reflected in the Draft. Normative questions (iii) and (iv) are interesting and hard. Critiques of the Draft presume that contract law could do a lot to help consumers but that the Draft would thwart such efforts. There are limits to what contract law can do to give consumers a leg up, however, and the Draft does not narrow those limits. Sweeping statements, such as that the Draft “if adopted, would drive a dagger through consumers’ rights,” are excessive, even if limited only to doctrines such as unconscionability. Critics are notably short on cases that go their way under current law but which would come out differently under the Draft. The Restatement project presumes the exercise of nonpartisan judgment. Some criticisms of the draft, notably those contained in a letter signed by numerous state attorneys general, are more political tracts than analytic critiques. Because the Draft does a good job analyzing and distilling the law, the real question in this debate is whether the ALI and the Restatement project as a whole can withstand efforts, such as the AGs’ Letter, to use the tools and standards of retail politics to defeat the analytic approach of the Draft. To the extent such efforts succeed, the Restatement concept as a whole will fail.
消费者合同和重述项目
最近对美国法律协会消费者合同法重述草案(“草案”)的争议提出了四个问题:(i)关于消费者合同的形成或不合理等基本合同原则的状况如何;(二)草案是否符合现行法律;(iii)合同法能在多大程度上帮助消费者在现代经济中获得优势;(iv)草案是否应作更多工作?对草案的积极批评是软弱的。与《草案》不矛盾的案例被引证为是错误的,地方法院的意见甚至没有在其本地巡回法院被采纳,却被称赞为“主要案例”,而形成规则则被谴责为不稳定和混乱,而标准是明确的。对问题(i)和(ii)的回答是,案件是根据《草案》准确反映的原则合理解决的。规范性问题(iii)和(iv)既有趣又困难。对草案的批评认为,合同法可以为消费者提供很多帮助,但草案会阻碍这种努力。然而,合同法在帮助消费者方面所能做的是有限的,而草案并没有缩小这些限制。笼统的陈述,比如草案“如果被采纳,将像一把匕首一样刺穿消费者的权利”,是过分的,即使仅限于诸如“不合理”之类的理论。批评人士尤其缺乏那些在现行法律下可以按照自己的方式行事,但在草案下会有不同结果的案例。“重述”计划假定运用无党派的判断。对该草案的一些批评,尤其是在一封由许多州总检察长签名的信中所包含的批评,与其说是分析性的批评,不如说是政治性的小册子。因为草案在分析和提炼法律方面做得很好,所以这场辩论中的真正问题是,ALI和重述项目作为一个整体是否能够承受住像AGs的信这样的努力,即使用零售政治的工具和标准来击败草案的分析方法。如果这些努力取得成功,“重述”概念作为一个整体将会失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信