“The United States Supreme Court rarely has occasion to opine on contract law, the contours of which are largely left to state courts. However, a couple of recent arbitration cases provided the court with a unique opportunity to point out the difference between contract terms implied-in-fact and contract terms implied-in-law. As any diligent first-year Contracts student should know, the former must rest upon the actual consent of the parties (even though not clearly expressed), while the latter are given effect through default legal rules, applied, as necessary, where the parties’ agreement is silent. This distinction between the two (and between contract ‘interpretation’ and ‘construction’) is, of course, not always made clear in contract cases addressing one or both …” (more)
[ContractsProf Blog, 13 June]
First posted 2013-06-13 20:08:26
Leave a Reply