The DOI matches its Crossref record.
In Defense of the Contract at Will
Abstract
In the remainder of this paper, I examine the arguments that can be made for and against the contract at will. I hope to show that it is adopted not because it allows the employer to exploit the employee, but rather because over a very broad range of circumstances it works to the mutual benefit of both parties, where the benefits are measured, as ever, at the time of the contract's formation and not at the time of dispute. To justify this result, I examine the contract in light of the three dominant standards that have emerged as the test of the soundness of any legal doctrine: intrinsic fairness, effects upon utility or wealth, and distributional consequences. I conclude that the first two tests point strongly to the maintenance of the at-will rule, while the third, if it offers any guidance at all, points in the same direction.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cited by
Autor, D. H. (2003) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/344122 · Cited by 1,534
Wrongful Discharge Laws and Innovation
Acharya, V. V., Baghai, R. P., & Subramanian, K. V. (2014) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hht009 · Cited by 579
Autor, D. H. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.281431 · Cited by 397
Metadata
- Authors
- Epstein, R. A.
- Venue
- The University of Chicago Law Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1984
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 947
- ISSN
- 0041-9494 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1530834736
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In Defense of the Contract at Will. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1599554
- The paper
- Epstein, R. A. (1984). In Defense of the Contract at Will. The University of Chicago Law Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599554
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.