IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-652459.html

Bayesian Contractual Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Yair Listokin

Abstract

Courts seeking the most likely intent of contracting parties should interpret contracts according to Bayes's rule. The best interpretation of a contract reflects both the prior likelihood (base rate) of a pair of contracting parties having a given intention and the probability that the contract would be written as it is given that intention. If the base rate of the intention associated with the simplest reading of the contract is low, then Bayes's rule implies that the simplest reading is not necessarily the interpretation of the contract that most likely captures the intention of the parties. The Bayesian framework explains when default rules should be more or less sticky and helps to define the appropriate role of boilerplate language in contractual interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yair Listokin, 2010. "Bayesian Contractual Interpretation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 359-374.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/652459
    DOI: 10.1086/652459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/652459
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/652459
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/652459?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bebchuk, Lucian Ayre & Shavell, Steven, 1991. "Information and the Scope of Liability for Breach of Contract: The Rule of Hadley vs. Baxendale," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 284-312, Fall.
    2. Steven Shavell, 2006. "On the Writing and the Interpretation of Contracts," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 289-314, October.
    3. Alan Schwartz & Robert Scott, "undated". "Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1011, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joel Watson, 2021. "Theoretical Foundations of Relational Incentive Contracts," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 631-659, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anderlini Luca & Felli Leonardo & Postlewaite Andrew, 2011. "Should Courts Always Enforce What Contracting Parties Write?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 14-28, February.
    2. Nicola Gennaioli & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2015. "Optimally vague contracts and the law," Economics Working Papers 1410, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2017.
    3. Marian Moszoro & Pablo T. Spiller & Sebastian Stolorz, 2016. "Rigidity of Public Contracts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 396-427, September.
    4. Ola Kvaløy & Trond E. Olsen, 2016. "Incentive Provision when Contracting is Costly," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(332), pages 741-767, October.
    5. Daniel Danau, 2019. "Contract law and Contract theory. A survey and some considerations," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2019-04, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    6. Anderlini, Luca & Postlewaite, Andrew & Felli, Leonardo, 2006. "Should courts always enforce what contracting parties write? this paper replaces TE/2003/464," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58189, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Richard Craswell, 2003. "Kaplow and Shavell on the Substance of Fairness," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 245-275, January.
    8. Alan Schwartz, 2004. "The Law and Economics of Costly Contracting," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 2-31, April.
    9. Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti, 2009. "Standardized enforcement: Access to justice vs contractual innovation," Economics Working Papers 1329, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jun 2012.
    10. Zhao, Xiaojian, 2011. "Framing contingencies in contracts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 31-40, January.
    11. Manuel Willington, 2013. "Hold Up Under Costly Litigation and Imperfect Courts of Law," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1023-1055, October.
    12. Blume, Andreas & Deimen, Inga & Inoue, Sean, 2022. "Incomplete contracts versus communication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    13. Steffen Altmann & Armin Falk & Paul Heidhues & Rajshri Jayaraman & Marrit Teirlinck, 2019. "Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 808-826, December.
    14. Armelle Mazé & Claude Ménard, 2010. "Private Ordering, Collective Action, and the Self-Enforcing Range of Contracts. The Case of French Livestock Industry," Post-Print halshs-00624288, HAL.
    15. Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of Contract Law," NBER Working Papers 9696, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Marcin Isabel & Nicklisch Andreas, 2017. "Testing the Endowment Effect for Default Rules," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, July.
    17. Kvaløy, Ola & Olsen, Trond E., 2015. "The tenuous relationship between effort and performance pay," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 32-39.
    18. Lewis A. Kornhauser & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2012. "Contracts between Legal Persons [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    19. Isabel Marcin & Andreas Nicklisch, 2014. "Testing the Endowment Effect for Default Rules," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2014_01, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    20. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2005. "Should Contractual Clauses that Forbid Renegotiation Always be Enforced?," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 315-329, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/652459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.