The Fundamentals and Functions of Contra- Proferentem Rule on Contract Law

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 Assistant Professor Shiraz University (Corresponding Author

2 : Ph.D student in Private Law, Shiraz University

Abstract

 
Abstract    
Contra-Proferentem rule states that when a contract provision is vague, the court interoperates it against who has drafted the agreement and favorable to the other party. For years, this rule has been invoked and used in standard contracts. Therefore, the main challenge that we will cover in this article is rationales and applications of it in various areas of law. At the end of this study it is revealed that the rationales of the rule are: reducing the ambiguity in contracts, decreasing unfair terms and redistribution of wealth and its main function is to support the weaker party in standard contracts, asymmetric agreements and etc.; because today one-sided and standard contracts, on grounds of their advantages, are widely used by the stronger party, and deployment of this principle provides the possibility to modify the bargaining power of the parties.

Keywords

References

67, 1151-1153.
Abraham, K. S. (1996). A Theory of Insurance Policy Interpretation. MICH.L. REV, 95, 531-538.
Ayres, I., & Gertner, R. (1989). Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules. YALE L. J., 99(80), 105.
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive Interpretation in Law. (S. Bashi, Trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Charny, D. (1991). Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation. MICH. L. REV., 89, 1815-1854.
Chetkovich, C. A. (2005). Eating smoke: fire in urban America, 1800-1950. J. of Interdisc. Hist., 36, 106-107.
Cserne, P. (2007). Policy considerations in contract interpretation: the contra proferentem rule from a comparative law and economics perspective. Hungarian Association for Law and Economics, 5. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/peter_cserne/28. 21/10/2016
Cserne, P. (2009). Policy considerations in contract interpretation: the contra proferentem rule from a comparative law and economics perspective. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/peter_cserne/28
Horton, D. (2003). Flipping the Script: Contra Proferentem and Standard Form Contracts. University of Colorado L. REV, 80.
Institute, A. L. (1981). The Scope of Contractual Obligations. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 2. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Law Institute Publishers.
Kessler, F. (1943). Contracts of Adhesion Some Thoughts about Freedom of Contract. COLUM. L. REV., 43, 629.
Krampe, C. (1983). Die Unklarheitenregel, Bürgerliches und Römisches Recht. Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt.
Kronman, A. T. (1980). Contract law and distributive justice. Yale L. J.(89), 472-473.
Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (2006). In Defense of Redistribution Through Private Law. University of Minnesota Law Review, 91(2), 326, 381-390.
Patterson, D. (1993). The Pseudo-Debate Over Default Rules in Contract Law. S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J, 3, 235-279.
Treitel, G. (1999). Law of Contracts (10th ed.). London: Butterworths.
Vance, W. R. (1911). The History of the Development of the Warranty in Insurance Law. YALE L.J., 20, 524.
Cases
Charles Behlen Sons’ Co. v. Ricketts, 164 N.E. 436, 438 (Ohio Ct. App.)1928).
Southern Ry. Co. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 145 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir.) 1994).
Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d 168, 171 (Cal. 1966).
Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 10 Cal. Rptr. 781, 784 (Ct. App. 1961).
New York, N.H. & H.R.R. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 136 (1953).
Ury v. Jewelers Acceptance Corp., 38 Cal. Rptr. 376, 381 (Ct. App. 1964).
Hamilton v. Stockton Unified School Dist., 54 Cal. Rptr. 463, 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966).
Doyle v. Finance America, LLC, 918 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.3 (Md. Ct. App. 2007).
Morgan Stanley v. New England Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 270, 279 (2d Cir. 2000).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. MetPath, Inc., 38 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1092 (D. Minn. 1998).
CPS Chemical Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 536 A.2d 311, 318 (App. Div. 1988).
Hamwi v. Citinational-Buckeye Inv. Co., 140 Cal. Rtpr. 215, 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).
Carolina Care Plan Inc. v. McKenzie, 467 F.3d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 2006).
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., 6 P.3d 669, 767 (Cal. 2000).
Scovill v. WSYX/ABC, 425 F.3d 1012, 1017 (6th Cir. 2005).
First National Bank v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co, 95 U.S. 673 (1877)
Civil Law Knowledge
Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
September 2017
Pages 1-11

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics