Conceptualizing Contractual Interpretation

Alan Schwartz and Joel Watson

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2013, vol. 42, issue 1, 1 - 34

Abstract: Many litigated written contracts require interpretation, but few formal treatments of the interpretive process exist. This paper analyzes welfare-maximizing interpretive rules. It shows that (1) accurate interpretations maximize expected gains by rewarding parties only for compliant performances; (2) an optimal interpretive rule trades off these gains against the costs of writing contracts, investing in the deal, and trials; (3) an efficient interpretive process sometimes requires an adjudicator to decide on the basis of the writing and the tendered performance, without a trial; (4) courts maximize accuracy in interpretation rather than welfare, which yields too many trials, prevents some efficient contracting relationships from forming, and distorts contract writing; (5) party preferences regarding interpretation often are closer to first best than judicial preferences, so legal interpretive rules should be defaults; and (6) arbitration is more attractive to parties when the interpretive task requires inferring intent from a tendered performance rather than from a writing.

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667765 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667765 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667765

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().