Circumscribing election: Reflections on the taxonomization and mental componentry of the affirmation of a contract by election

Richard Bigwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

It not frequently occurs in legal contractual settings that one contracting party is confronted with a choice between holding the other contracting party to a valid and subsisting contractual relationship inter se ('affirming' the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power permitting that relationship to be put to an end ('disaffirming' the contract) When that happens, the other party becomes vulnerable to having his or her existing legal position altered (indeed abolished) by the unilateral decision of the party so confronted and empowered. The existence of such vulnerability thus necessitates that a choice, one way or the other, eventually, and permanently, be made; for it is undoubtedly unfair and inconvenient that the other party should be 'faced with the dilemma of uncertainty'3 as to where she or he strands vis-it-vis the first party,4 especially in commercial affairs, and that she or he should thereby be exposed to procrastination worse, opportunism at the hands of the party empowered to choose,s Contract law's longstanding aversion to one-sided promises generally explains why the power-holding party should be disqualified from an ability to speculate protractedly or indefinitely on the future progress of the contract at the other party's risk or possible disadvantage.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)235-278
Number of pages44
JournalUniversity of Queensland Law Journal
Volume30
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

election
legal position
opportunism
vulnerability
uncertainty
Law
ability

Cite this

@article{6cb580365a7c4bbb8c0a213cd4730ea7,
title = "Circumscribing election: Reflections on the taxonomization and mental componentry of the affirmation of a contract by election",
abstract = "It not frequently occurs in legal contractual settings that one contracting party is confronted with a choice between holding the other contracting party to a valid and subsisting contractual relationship inter se ('affirming' the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power permitting that relationship to be put to an end ('disaffirming' the contract) When that happens, the other party becomes vulnerable to having his or her existing legal position altered (indeed abolished) by the unilateral decision of the party so confronted and empowered. The existence of such vulnerability thus necessitates that a choice, one way or the other, eventually, and permanently, be made; for it is undoubtedly unfair and inconvenient that the other party should be 'faced with the dilemma of uncertainty'3 as to where she or he strands vis-it-vis the first party,4 especially in commercial affairs, and that she or he should thereby be exposed to procrastination worse, opportunism at the hands of the party empowered to choose,s Contract law's longstanding aversion to one-sided promises generally explains why the power-holding party should be disqualified from an ability to speculate protractedly or indefinitely on the future progress of the contract at the other party's risk or possible disadvantage.",
author = "Richard Bigwood",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "235--278",
journal = "University of Queensland Law Journal",
issn = "0083-4041",
publisher = "University of Queensland Press",
number = "2",

}

Circumscribing election : Reflections on the taxonomization and mental componentry of the affirmation of a contract by election. / Bigwood, Richard.

In: University of Queensland Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2011, p. 235-278.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Circumscribing election

T2 - Reflections on the taxonomization and mental componentry of the affirmation of a contract by election

AU - Bigwood, Richard

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - It not frequently occurs in legal contractual settings that one contracting party is confronted with a choice between holding the other contracting party to a valid and subsisting contractual relationship inter se ('affirming' the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power permitting that relationship to be put to an end ('disaffirming' the contract) When that happens, the other party becomes vulnerable to having his or her existing legal position altered (indeed abolished) by the unilateral decision of the party so confronted and empowered. The existence of such vulnerability thus necessitates that a choice, one way or the other, eventually, and permanently, be made; for it is undoubtedly unfair and inconvenient that the other party should be 'faced with the dilemma of uncertainty'3 as to where she or he strands vis-it-vis the first party,4 especially in commercial affairs, and that she or he should thereby be exposed to procrastination worse, opportunism at the hands of the party empowered to choose,s Contract law's longstanding aversion to one-sided promises generally explains why the power-holding party should be disqualified from an ability to speculate protractedly or indefinitely on the future progress of the contract at the other party's risk or possible disadvantage.

AB - It not frequently occurs in legal contractual settings that one contracting party is confronted with a choice between holding the other contracting party to a valid and subsisting contractual relationship inter se ('affirming' the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power permitting that relationship to be put to an end ('disaffirming' the contract) When that happens, the other party becomes vulnerable to having his or her existing legal position altered (indeed abolished) by the unilateral decision of the party so confronted and empowered. The existence of such vulnerability thus necessitates that a choice, one way or the other, eventually, and permanently, be made; for it is undoubtedly unfair and inconvenient that the other party should be 'faced with the dilemma of uncertainty'3 as to where she or he strands vis-it-vis the first party,4 especially in commercial affairs, and that she or he should thereby be exposed to procrastination worse, opportunism at the hands of the party empowered to choose,s Contract law's longstanding aversion to one-sided promises generally explains why the power-holding party should be disqualified from an ability to speculate protractedly or indefinitely on the future progress of the contract at the other party's risk or possible disadvantage.

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 235

EP - 278

JO - University of Queensland Law Journal

JF - University of Queensland Law Journal

SN - 0083-4041

IS - 2

ER -