Law and Philosophy 15 (3):271 - 291 (1996)
AbstractDespite a superficial similarity in circumstance, the dynamics of the judicial process of contract interpretation are not equivalent to the circumstances giving rise to the Primacy Dilemma. The Primacy Dilemma involves two parties; the judicial process involves a third: the court. This distinction is critical for while Wittgenstein's exposé of the Primacy Dilemma as illusion does not require that centuries of refinements to theories of contract interpretation be scrapped, it does require an abandonment of the ideal that courts “do not and cannot make contracts; courts merely enforce agreements that the parties themselves have reached.”
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Speech Sounds and the Direct Meeting of Minds.Barry C. Smith - 2010 - In Matthew Nudds & Casey O'Callaghan (eds.), New Essays on Sound and Perception. Oxford University Press.
There is No Stream of Consciousness.Susan J. Blackmore - 2002 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5-6):17-28.
The Grand Grand Illusion Illusion.Jonathan Cohen - 2002 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5-6):141-157.
Meeting of the Minds: The Relationship Between Medieval and Modern Philosophy.S. Brown (ed.) - 1998 - Brespols.
Aesthetic Illusion: Theoretical and Historical Approaches.Frederick Burwick & Walter Pape (eds.) - 1990 - W. De Gruyter.
Meeting of Minds. Europese Burgers Denken Over Hersenwetenschappen.Marjan Slob - 2006 - Krisis 7 (3):80-84.