Kirjahaku

This book describes and analyzes the law of contract interpretation in the United States, offering a strong guide for legal practitioners, judges, and scholars involved in contract law. Structured along two dimensions, Elements of Contract Interpretation first takes a look at the "elements" within contract interpretation. This includes the particular sources of evidence, the building blocks of interpretation that the courts recognize when interpreting contracts. Such examples include the governing contract terms; the circumstances when the contract is made; each party's purpose; usages; and the maxims of contract interpretation. The second dimension is three theories of contract interpretation - literalism, objective theory, and subjective theory. Each theory allows a court to recognize a different set of interpretive elements, and, in practice, how the law of different jurisdictions in the U.S. endorse one theory or another. Since some jurisdictions combine theories within a two- or three-step framework for analysis, this type of law makes this book a primary resource for both practitioners and academics.

This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law, and proposes two main theses. One is the good faith thesis, which defends the possibility of lawful judicial decisions even when judges exercise discretion. The other is the permissible discretion thesis, which defends the compatibility of judicial discretion and legal indeterminacy with the legitimacy of adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Together these two theses oppose both conservative theories that would restrict the scope of adjudication unduly, and leftist critical theories that would liberate judges from the rule of law.

This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law, and proposes two main theses. One is the good faith thesis, which defends the possibility of lawful judicial decisions even when judges exercise discretion. The other is the permissible discretion thesis, which defends the compatibility of judicial discretion and legal indeterminacy with the legitimacy of adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Together these two theses oppose both conservative theories that would restrict the scope of adjudication unduly, and leftist critical theories that would liberate judges from the rule of law.