English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

What is the role of contract law in remedying breach? The question of the appropriate legal remedy, specific performance versus money damages, has provided adequate fodder for three decades of debate in the law and economics discourse. In the legal discipline at large, the topic has spurred centuries of debate, as illustrated by Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous line: "The only universal consequence of a legally binding promise is, that the law makes the promisor pay damages if the promised event does not come to pass."' Holmes's approach to contractual remedy would evolve during the latter half of the twentieth century into the "efficient breach" theory, which advocates the remedy of expectation damages upon breach in order to encourage the promisor' s breach where the resulting profits to the promisor exceed the loss to the promisee.2 Although this favorite doctrine of law and economics scholars more or less describes the norm in AngloAmerican contract law, in which damages are routinely available and specific performance rarely granted, it has met and continues to meet with criticism on a variety of grounds.3

Tortious Interference and the Law of Contract: "The Case for Specific Performance" Revisited