Fine-tuning affirmation of a contract by election: Part 2

Richard Bigwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The common law election doctrine is well known to judges and lawyers but it is not always well understood. This article considers that doctrine as it applies to the choice, which occasionally confronts a contracting party, between asserting a right to hold the other party to the existing contractual relationship inter se (that is, "affirming" the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power allowing that contractual relationship to be put to an end (that is, "disaffirming" the contract). The right-holder's communicated decision not to disaffirm the contract alone results in "affirmation" of the contract and, by operation of law, permanent loss of the power that was not exercised, thereby destroying the inconsistency between the two jural alternatives that necessitated a choice in the first place. The election to affirm the contract, as opposed to disaffirming it, is the focus of this article, which will be published in two parts. This part considers miscellaneous troubling or unsettled features of the election doctrine's scope, rationale, criteria, relationship to other legal preclusionary categories, and operation as they relate to affirmatory decisions or conduct in particular. Part 2 will examine the difficult and controversial question of the necessary mental componentry of an effective affirmatory election, in the light of the well-recognised contemporary distinction between "actual" and "imputed" election.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)617-688
Number of pages72
JournalNew Zealand Law Review
Volume2010
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

election
doctrine
common law
lawyer
Law

Cite this

Bigwood, Richard. / Fine-tuning affirmation of a contract by election : Part 2. In: New Zealand Law Review. 2010 ; Vol. 2010, No. 4. pp. 617-688.
@article{205b57c96f9640b5ae256c7bd70b328d,
title = "Fine-tuning affirmation of a contract by election: Part 2",
abstract = "The common law election doctrine is well known to judges and lawyers but it is not always well understood. This article considers that doctrine as it applies to the choice, which occasionally confronts a contracting party, between asserting a right to hold the other party to the existing contractual relationship inter se (that is, {"}affirming{"} the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power allowing that contractual relationship to be put to an end (that is, {"}disaffirming{"} the contract). The right-holder's communicated decision not to disaffirm the contract alone results in {"}affirmation{"} of the contract and, by operation of law, permanent loss of the power that was not exercised, thereby destroying the inconsistency between the two jural alternatives that necessitated a choice in the first place. The election to affirm the contract, as opposed to disaffirming it, is the focus of this article, which will be published in two parts. This part considers miscellaneous troubling or unsettled features of the election doctrine's scope, rationale, criteria, relationship to other legal preclusionary categories, and operation as they relate to affirmatory decisions or conduct in particular. Part 2 will examine the difficult and controversial question of the necessary mental componentry of an effective affirmatory election, in the light of the well-recognised contemporary distinction between {"}actual{"} and {"}imputed{"} election.",
author = "Richard Bigwood",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "2010",
pages = "617--688",
journal = "New Zealand Law Review",
issn = "1173-5864",
number = "4",

}

Fine-tuning affirmation of a contract by election : Part 2. / Bigwood, Richard.

In: New Zealand Law Review, Vol. 2010, No. 4, 2010, p. 617-688.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fine-tuning affirmation of a contract by election

T2 - Part 2

AU - Bigwood, Richard

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The common law election doctrine is well known to judges and lawyers but it is not always well understood. This article considers that doctrine as it applies to the choice, which occasionally confronts a contracting party, between asserting a right to hold the other party to the existing contractual relationship inter se (that is, "affirming" the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power allowing that contractual relationship to be put to an end (that is, "disaffirming" the contract). The right-holder's communicated decision not to disaffirm the contract alone results in "affirmation" of the contract and, by operation of law, permanent loss of the power that was not exercised, thereby destroying the inconsistency between the two jural alternatives that necessitated a choice in the first place. The election to affirm the contract, as opposed to disaffirming it, is the focus of this article, which will be published in two parts. This part considers miscellaneous troubling or unsettled features of the election doctrine's scope, rationale, criteria, relationship to other legal preclusionary categories, and operation as they relate to affirmatory decisions or conduct in particular. Part 2 will examine the difficult and controversial question of the necessary mental componentry of an effective affirmatory election, in the light of the well-recognised contemporary distinction between "actual" and "imputed" election.

AB - The common law election doctrine is well known to judges and lawyers but it is not always well understood. This article considers that doctrine as it applies to the choice, which occasionally confronts a contracting party, between asserting a right to hold the other party to the existing contractual relationship inter se (that is, "affirming" the contract), and exercising an inconsistent legal power allowing that contractual relationship to be put to an end (that is, "disaffirming" the contract). The right-holder's communicated decision not to disaffirm the contract alone results in "affirmation" of the contract and, by operation of law, permanent loss of the power that was not exercised, thereby destroying the inconsistency between the two jural alternatives that necessitated a choice in the first place. The election to affirm the contract, as opposed to disaffirming it, is the focus of this article, which will be published in two parts. This part considers miscellaneous troubling or unsettled features of the election doctrine's scope, rationale, criteria, relationship to other legal preclusionary categories, and operation as they relate to affirmatory decisions or conduct in particular. Part 2 will examine the difficult and controversial question of the necessary mental componentry of an effective affirmatory election, in the light of the well-recognised contemporary distinction between "actual" and "imputed" election.

M3 - Article

VL - 2010

SP - 617

EP - 688

JO - New Zealand Law Review

JF - New Zealand Law Review

SN - 1173-5864

IS - 4

ER -