The Law and Economics of Contract Interpretation
Open accessAbstract
Contract interpretation is an understudied topic in the economic analysis of contract law. This paper combines simple formal analysis of the tradeoffs involved in interpretation with applications to the principal doctrines of contract interpretation, including the four corners rule, mutual mistake, contra proferentum, and what I call the (informal but very important) rule of extrinsic nonevidence. Gap filling is distinguished, and the relativity of interpretive doctrine to the interpretive medium - jurors, arbitrators, and judges in different kinds of judicial system - is emphasized.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An analysis of interpretation of insurance contracts: common law versus strict contra proferentem
Cole, C., & Henry, R. (2023) · Journal of Insurance Regulation · doi:10.52227/23499.2017 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Posner, R. A.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Posner, Richard A.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097307671
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal principles and applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Legal and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- contract interpretation, economic analysis of contract law, mutual mistake, extrinsic evidence, gap filling, judicial interpretation, arbitration, legal formalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
