{"title":"Mandating Precontractual Disclosure","authors":"E. Amarante","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2118216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Parties negotiating an arm’s length contract are generally not required to disclose facts to one another. Although this default rule is supported by both centuries of common law and freedom of contract principles, courts and legislatures treat certain transactions differently. This is particularly true in circumstances in which the default rule results in an unacceptable harm suffered by a broad group of persons. In such cases, lawmakers have acted to impose precontractual disclosure obligations. These decisions and statutes are largely reactive: a harm is identified in a certain transaction’s precontractual period and disclosure is mandated to rectify the harm. These reactive measures, although helpful, are insufficient in some instances. Large scale economic calamities are often caused by information asymmetries in individual contracts. This was true in the Great Depression (unregulated contracts for sales of stock) and the Great Recession (unregulated contracts for sales of mortgage-backed securities). <br><br>This article proposes an analytical tool to prospectively identify such transactions. This tool, the Disclosure Framework, provides lawmakers a means of identifying circumstances in which it is appropriate to mandate precontractual disclosure. To accomplish this task, the Disclosure Framework directs lawmakers to identify the information asymmetry in a transaction and balance the respective harms of either disclosure or nondisclosure on the affected stakeholder group. <br><br>Precontractual disclosure is a matter of compelling immediacy. Because regulatory agencies are currently struggling with how to structure the disclosure mandates of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the question of when it is appropriate to mandate precontractual disclosure is both timely and important. Although designed for legislators, the Disclosure Framework may also serve as a tool for consumer rights groups and agencies (such as the recently established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) to help spur legislative action. Ultimately, the Disclosure Framework provides support for the imposition of precontractual disclosure that is both theoretically sound and consistent with common law and statutory exceptions to the default rule.","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Miami law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2118216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Parties negotiating an arm’s length contract are generally not required to disclose facts to one another. Although this default rule is supported by both centuries of common law and freedom of contract principles, courts and legislatures treat certain transactions differently. This is particularly true in circumstances in which the default rule results in an unacceptable harm suffered by a broad group of persons. In such cases, lawmakers have acted to impose precontractual disclosure obligations. These decisions and statutes are largely reactive: a harm is identified in a certain transaction’s precontractual period and disclosure is mandated to rectify the harm. These reactive measures, although helpful, are insufficient in some instances. Large scale economic calamities are often caused by information asymmetries in individual contracts. This was true in the Great Depression (unregulated contracts for sales of stock) and the Great Recession (unregulated contracts for sales of mortgage-backed securities).
This article proposes an analytical tool to prospectively identify such transactions. This tool, the Disclosure Framework, provides lawmakers a means of identifying circumstances in which it is appropriate to mandate precontractual disclosure. To accomplish this task, the Disclosure Framework directs lawmakers to identify the information asymmetry in a transaction and balance the respective harms of either disclosure or nondisclosure on the affected stakeholder group.
Precontractual disclosure is a matter of compelling immediacy. Because regulatory agencies are currently struggling with how to structure the disclosure mandates of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the question of when it is appropriate to mandate precontractual disclosure is both timely and important. Although designed for legislators, the Disclosure Framework may also serve as a tool for consumer rights groups and agencies (such as the recently established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) to help spur legislative action. Ultimately, the Disclosure Framework provides support for the imposition of precontractual disclosure that is both theoretically sound and consistent with common law and statutory exceptions to the default rule.
谈判公平合同的双方通常不需要向对方披露事实。尽管这一默认规则得到了几个世纪以来的普通法和合同自由原则的支持,但法院和立法机构对某些交易的处理方式有所不同。在默认规则导致一大群人遭受不可接受的伤害的情况下尤其如此。在这种情况下,立法者已经采取行动,强制规定了合同前披露的义务。这些决定和法规在很大程度上是反应性的:在特定交易的合同前阶段确定损害,并强制披露以纠正损害。这些反应性措施虽然有帮助,但在某些情况下是不够的。大规模的经济灾难往往是由个体契约中的信息不对称造成的。在大萧条时期(不受监管的股票销售合同)和大衰退时期(不受监管的抵押贷款支持证券销售合同)都是如此。本文提出了一种分析工具来前瞻性地识别此类交易。这一工具,即披露框架,为立法者提供了一种手段,以确定在何种情况下应强制进行合同前披露。为了完成这一任务,披露框架指导立法者识别交易中的信息不对称,并平衡披露或不披露对受影响的利益相关者群体的各自危害。合同前披露是一个紧迫的问题。由于监管机构目前正为如何构建《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法》(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)的披露要求而苦苦挣扎,因此,何时强制执行合同前披露的问题既及时又重要。虽然披露框架是为立法者设计的,但它也可以作为消费者权利团体和机构(如最近成立的消费者金融保护局)的工具,帮助推动立法行动。最终,披露框架为强制实施合同前披露提供了支持,这在理论上是合理的,并且符合普通法和默认规则的法定例外。