Talk:Freedom of contract
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Surprised there is not more activity in this area, it is a fairly controversial area within the law. Does anyone believe there should be a place for the term "private ordering" in this article? It is a catch-all phrase used by legal scholars (particulary libertarians like Epstein) and encompasses the philosophical, economic and moral justifications used to advance "freedom of contract." Gibbsale 01:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Atiyah regarding commonwealth
Patrick Atiyah's work The Rise and Fall of the Freedom to Contract is incredibly important in this area of legal theory (regarding all commonwealth law and very relevent to US aswell). Bamkin 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the lead is a problem: "The philosophy put forward by theorists Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes is for an individual to use society as a tool for acquiring property. They saw the state as simply a means to an end, not as a provider. They opposed artificial restraint on the free-will of the individual to pursue his own self interests. Hobbes would have called it liberal natural law."
That last sentence, Hobbes "...would have called...". I don't think it's OK to put words in Hobbes' mouth. The rest is troubling because, besides having no refs, Smith and Hobbes aren't referred to in the rest of the article. Cretog8 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph is also simply untrue. Adam Smith believed in regulation and was, in particular, a strong advocate of usury laws. Generally the article is more an exercise in ideology than accurate editing.Alan (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on morality is, in my mind, totaly fallacious and I move to strike imediatly. I'm pro-freedom-of-contract, but I see that contract regulation seeks to prevent the formation of a contract, not destroy it once it is established. This should be enough for the removal of that section. But, to add fuel to the fire, equity is the most valuable argument against freedom of contract because it seeks to examine contracts in terms of their fairness. If no objection is made, I will remove in a week or two. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to add this part. The section I specifically want to remove is the
|“||Many see morality as the basis for requiring an individual to keep his promise. Most cultures value honour and honesty, and rely on conscience to underpin morality. Dishonesty is generally considered wrong, particularly when one promise induces another person to take action. Equity or similar codes of fairness therefore require a person to obey the dictates of his or her conscience and so avoid causing loss to other people. Therefore, they codify the concept of wrong in tort – the law of private wrongs – which is based on the notions of personal accountability, causation, and, in modern law, negligence.||”|
14th Amendment to the US Const.
The Ninth Amendment, as noted in numberous sources, does not guarantee any rights, it only prohibits saying we don't have rights because they aren't in the list specifically. This article really needs to turn on the 14th amendment, specifically the Due Process clause which Lochner and West Coast v. Parish were decided on. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This article was full of irrelevant material and POV editorialising. I've removed a lot. The result is a bit stubby, but at least somewhat encyclopedic and relevant to the topic.JQ (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Substantive Due Process
What are the thoughts (of those paying attention) to add more information about this being a right under "substantive due process?" The substantive due process article needs some clean and additional information about the different enumerated rights. The information documented herein could easily be used to clean up two articles at once. Just a suggestion. Any thoughts? Morning277 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Freedom to have contractions while in labour??
Freedom of Contract in the US-- Lochner
As is the second sentence in the second paragraph of this section contains the pronoun "He" but that pronoun coordinates with no noun. Or in layman's terms, the reader has no idea who "He" is. The only people introduced in the section are Lochner and the Supreme Court, and it seems unlikely that Lochner would disparage the Court for agreeing with his argument, and the Court can't really disparage itself. Using my knowledge of the case it sounds like Oliver Wendell Holmes or maybe Louis Brandeis. Also if I messed this up I am sorry, I rarely contribute talk pages. This may be my first time. ForeverZero (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)