Contract Law

Print
Article
Volume 92.7
The Contractualization of Disability Rights Law
Yaron Covo
Assistant Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

For helpful comments on earlier drafts, I thank Sania Anwar, Ian Ayres, Abbe Gluck, Adi Goldiner, Hanoch Dagan, Doron Dorfman, Klaas Eller, Elizabeth Emens, Jasmine Harris, Avery Katz, Craig Konnoth, Juliet Kostritsky, Shirley Lin, Daniel Markovits, Petros Mavroidis, Jamelia Morgan, Szymon Osmola, David Pozen, Jessica Roberts, Emily Rock, Elle Rothermich, Kate Sapirstein, Ani Satz, Michael Ashley Stein, Karen Tani, and Cristina Tilley, as well as participants in the Junior Scholars Conference at Northeastern School of Law (2024), the Junior Faculty Forum at Richmond School of Law (2024), the 47th Health Law Professors Conference (2024), and the Ninth Annual Health Law Works-in-Progress Retreat at Seton Hall Law School (2025). Lastly, I thank the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their insightful and helpful edits and suggestions.

In this Article, Yaron Covo argues that disability rights law in the United States is shaped not only by civil rights statutes but also by contract law doctrines. Contract law surfaces in the disability rights context through judicial determinations of accommodations negotiations and spending clause language in disability rights statutes. The Article argues that this intertwining has eroded rights under statutes meant to promote equality and protect vulnerable classes. The Article concludes with two recommendations: replacing the “individualized” negotiation model with a uniform model and adding certain mandatory rules and defaults in the disability rights context.

Civil Rights Contract Law Disability Law
Print
Comment
Volume 92.5
On FRAND-ly Terms: Examining the Role of Juries in Standard-Essential Patent Disputes
Marta Krason
B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.S., Stanford University; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Jonathan Masur and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review, including Andy Wang, Zoë Ewing, Jonah Klausner, Karan Lala, Eric Haupt, Eugene DeCosse, and Helen Chamberlin, for their thoughtful advice and insights.

Holders of patents covering technology standards, known as standard-essential patents (SEP), control the rights to an invention with no commercially-viable alternative or that cannot be designed around while still complying with a standard. This gives SEP holders significant leverage in licensing negotiations. Standards development organizations (SDOs) play an important role in curbing opportunistic behavior by patent holders. SDOs require SEP holders to license their patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. However, courts have mischaracterized FRAND commitments, concluding that these disputes carry a Seventh Amendment guarantee to a jury trial. This mischaracterization undermines the fair resolution of FRAND disputes, and a different approach is necessary. In this Comment, Marta Krason proposes an alternative analytical framework that more accurately characterizes FRAND disputes by drawing on principles from contract and property law, concluding that the constitutionally proper adjudicator is a judge, not a jury.

Contract Law Contracts Intellectual Property Technology
2
Essay
Pre-closing Liability
Omri Ben-Shahar
Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School

I am grateful to Russell Korobkin, Saul Levmore, and Eric Posner for helpful comments.

Consumer Law Contract Law
2
Book review
75.1
Economics as Context for Contract Law
George S. Geis
Associate Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law; Visiting Associate Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 2007–2008

Thanks to Victor Goldberg, Jody Kraus, Darian Ibrahim, and Eric Posner for helpful comments.

Contract Law Law and Economics
2
Article
78.3
Public Entrenchment through Private Law: Binding Local Governments
Christopher Serkin
Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

Thanks to Vicki Been for early conversations about this Article. I received invaluable comments from Greg Alexander, Fred Bloom, John Echeverria, Lee Fennell, Ted Janger, Jim Krier, Rebecca Kysar, Eric Posner, Julie Roin, Stew Sterk, Nelson Tebbe, and participants in faculty workshops at Brooklyn Law School and Cornell Law School, as well as participants at the Tel Aviv Environmental Law and Policy Workshop. Thanks to the Brooklyn Law School Dean’s Summer Research Fund for generously supporting this project. Carrie Darman and Amanda Zink provided research assistance.

Contract Law Property Law Public Choice
Print
Article
80.1
The Psychology of Contract Precautions
David A. Hoffman
James E. Beasley Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Tess Wilkinson-Ryan
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

We thank Jane Baron, Craig Green, Zev Eigen, Yuval Feldman, Bob Hillman, Greg Mandel, Rafael Pardo, Alex Radus, Brishen Rogers, David Zaring, and participants at faculty colloquia at Vanderbilt Law School, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington, William & Mary Law School, as well as at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies for comments on earlier drafts.

Behavioral Economics Contract Law Empirical Analysis Law and Economics

Volumes