Preprinted contracts offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and signed unread are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. The enforcement of such boilerplate agreements has been widely criticized by legal commentators because the consent offered to the terms seems extremely attenuated. Boilerplate agreements, however, help to foster commerce by allowing for mass production and transactional innovation. The market argument, rather than looking to voluntary consent as the touchstone of contractual legitimacy, argues in favor of enforcing such agreements so long as there are feedback mechanisms in place to prevent their abuse. Voluntary consent provide one such mechanism, but there are others, such as competitive markets and legal regulation. This analysis dramatically downgrades the role of consent in the normative justification of contract law, suggesting that much of the normative debate about boilerplate is wrongly focused on voluntariness and consent.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.