dc.contributor.author | HESSELINK, Martijn Willem | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-01-20T15:43:12Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ratio juris, 2020, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 196-222 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0952-1917 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1467-9337 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/69629 | |
dc.description | First published online: 12 July 2020 | en |
dc.description.abstract | This paper defends a right to the justification of contract, with reciprocal and general reasons, and explores its main implications for the law of contract and its theory. It argues that the leading essentialist and other monist contract theories, offering blueprints for an ideal contract law based on the alleged ultimate value or essential characteristic of contract law, cannot justify the basic structure of contract law. Instead, it argues, a critical discourse theory of contract can contribute to the realisation of the right to justification of contract by exposing patterns of contractual injustice, in particular exploitation and domination by contract, that contract law can and should prevent. | en |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | Wiley | en |
dc.relation.ispartof | Ratio juris | en |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en |
dc.title | The right to justification of contract | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/raju.12287 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 33 | en |
dc.identifier.startpage | 196 | en |
dc.identifier.endpage | 222 | en |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | en |
dc.embargo.terms | 2022-07-12 | |
dc.date.embargo | 2022-07-12 | |