This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Rationalizing Drennan: On Irrevocable Offers, Bid Shopping and Binding Range

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ofer Grosskopf (Tel Aviv University)
Barak Medina (Columbia University School of Law; Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Abstract

Courts may determine that an offer is irrevocable due to the offeree's reasonable reliance on it. For instance, the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958) held a subcontractor's price offer to be irrevocable once it had been relied upon by the general contractor in computing his overall bid. However, a rule of implied irrevocability raises two main difficulties. First, it seems unfair to force the offeror to commit, but not the offeree. Second, from an ex ante perspective, the implied irrevocability rule seems to deter parties from submitting low-priced, unqualified offers. These concerns have led several scholars to argue for modification of the rule. This paper rationalizes the implied irrevocability rule by demonstrating that the above concerns are unfounded. We demonstrate that whereas some restrictions on the offeree's freedom to conduct bid shopping ex post (i.e., after the uncertainties are resolved) are essential in order to allow him to receive viable price offers ex ante, these restrictions need not be absolute nor legally enforced. Partial restrictions, in the form of a self-enforced Binding Range, may well suffice. The plausible existence of a self-enforced Binding Range ensures that offerors have incentives to submit irrevocable bids because they can expect to earn a profit by submitting the best offer. This paper characterizes the optimal size of the Binding Range, and explores what legal provisions should be applied when the self-enforced Binding Range is sub-optimal.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=rle
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Subscription to the journal may be required to access full texts.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Berkeley Electronic Press in its journal Review of Law & Economics.

Volume (Year): 3 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 4
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:bep:rlecon:3:2007:2:4

Note: oai:bepress.com:rle-1127
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.bepress.com/rle

Order Information:
Web: http://www.bepress.com/subscriptions.html

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: Irrevocable Offers Bid Shopping termination fees option contracts contract formation

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. French, Kenneth R & McCormick, Robert E, 1984. "Sealed Bids, Sunk Costs, and the Process of Competition," Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 417-41, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2005. "Should Contractual Clauses that Forbid Renegotiation Always be Enforced?," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 315-329, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Burch, Timothy R., 2001. "Locking out rival bidders: The use of lockup options in corporate mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 103-141, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Bates, Thomas W. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2003. "Breaking up is hard to do? An analysis of termination fee provisions and merger outcomes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 469-504, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Sergio G. Lazzarini, 2004. "Order with Some Law: Complementarity versus Substitution of Formal and Informal Arrangements," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 261-298, October.
  6. MacLeod W. Bentley, 1993. "The Role of Exit Costs in the Theory of Cooperative Teams: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 521-529, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Putterman, Louis & Skillman, Gilbert L., 1992. "The role of exit costs in the theory of cooperative teams," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 596-618, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can use IDEAS to provide links to papers and articles in your course syllabus.

This page was last updated on 2008-11-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.