The common law of England and the United States and the civil law of continental Europe have a similar doctrinal structure, a structure not found in the English cases or Roman legal texts from which they supposedly descend. In this original and unorthodox study of common law and legal philosophy the author throws light on the historical origins of this confusion and in doing so attempts to find answers to many of the philosophical puzzles which contract lawyers face today. Reassessing (...) the impact of modern philosophy upon contract law, the author concludes that modern philosophy having failed to provide a new basis for a coherent doctrinal system in the law of contract, the only hope for devising such a coherent system lies in rediscovering the neglected philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. (shrink)

The book is an intellectual history of the work of Western jurists from ancient Rome to the present. It discusses the Roman jurists, the medieval civilians and canon lawyers, the late scholastics, the natural law schools of the 17th and 18th centuries, the positivism and conceptualism of the 19th century and its influence on common law, and the reaction against conceptualism since the late 19th century. Rarely have jurists worked alone. Rather, they have worked in schools, each of which pursued (...) a different project. The projects of the jurists had one element in common: they were attempts to understand and explain the law. Commitment to that project defines the work of a jurist and distinguishes it from the work of others who take part in fashioning and applying the law. Yet the project of each school of jurists had goals and methods of its own. By identifying them, this study shows how the jurists themselves understood their work and how these goals and methods shaped and limited what each school could achieve. (shrink)

Professor Ernest Weinrib has argued that restitutionary damages must be understood, not as a deterrent to wrongful conduct, but as a requirement of commutative Justice. Professor Gordley agrees, but claims that a purposive understanding of commutative Justice can shed more light on restitutionary damages than the formal understanding of Professor Weinrib. A purposive understanding enables us to distinguish appropriation of a right from mere inteference, to distinguish true restitutionary damages from damages in lieu of a forced sale or hold-up; and (...) to explain why, normally, it should not matter whether the defendant acted wilfully or innocently. (shrink)