Abstract
The meaning of reciprocity and fairness within contracts seems to be a constant source of disagreement and a continuous subject of ongoing theoretical debates in legal and moral philosophy. It is especially discernible within a mainstream of the classical post-Aristotelian tradition. The problem seems to pertain to the interdependence between the two parties of contract and their respective obligations. Mutual interdependence of contractual or pre-contractual obligations is usually indentified with a Greek term συνάλλαγμα, playing a significant role in Aristotelian philosophy, especially in theory of justice. Such interdependence has so far been analysed within a context of Pythagorean mathematics and has eventually been modelled in game theory. Game theoretic models such as Nash solution to bargaining problem are based on the assumption that contract consist in strategic interaction between agents. The paper explores the interactions between Aristotelian theory of commutative justice and contemporary advances in game theory and philosophy of contracts, aiming at addressing the question whether the Aristotelian concept of synallagma could still be regarded as a central category of contract law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The significance of this distinction for contract law has been emphasized in Gordley (1981, 1588–1592).
- 3.
An example may serve the rule that two thirds of the profit should belong to this partner who had given two thirds of the original capital for a given enterprise. See Lowry (1969, 47–49).
- 4.
Within this context Aristotle used the example of exchange between a house-builder and a shoe-maker. (EN V. 5.1133 a 10–15 and EN V.5.1133 b 1).
- 5.
Cf. Aristotle plainly distinguishes between corrective and commutative justice, admitting that: “Some hold that the reciprocity is just without qualification. This was the claim of the Pythagoreans, since they defined, without qualification, what is just as reciprocity with another. Reciprocity however fits neither distributive nor rectificatory justice, since often they conflict. (…) Again voluntariness and involuntariness make great difference” (EN V.5. 1133 a 1–10, trans. R. Crisp).
- 6.
In classical comment on the function of commutative justice in Nicomachean Ethics, D. G. Ritchie endorses that: “It seems to me quite certain that Corrective Justice is intended to apply to voluntary contracts, only when the terms of the contract have not been fulfilled.” Ritchie (1894, 188).
- 7.
These reflections were later applied within the scholastic debates concerning the notion of a “fair price”. See Lowry (1969, 49).
- 8.
It is not certain whether it was Aristotle himself or the work of the later commentators who had attached a diagram of the “figure of exchange” to the text. See: Lowry (1969, 57–58).
- 9.
- 10.
See Soudek (1952, 66–72).
- 11.
Moreover, K. Polanyi points out that the mechanisms of supply and demand, which are acting within the sphere of free-market, and which are the subject of analysis of the neoclassical theory of economics, were not known to Aristotle; see Polanyi (1957, 64–94).
- 12.
W. D. Ross in his classical work on Aristotle states however, that: “There is no moral virtue in commercial justice as described by Aristotle. “Justice” here is not a virtue, but a sort of “governor” in the economic machine which keeps exchange prices from swinging far from the actual value, for human needs, of the goods exchanged”. Ross (1953, 213).
- 13.
Within this context one can underline an interesting remark of J.N. Keynes. While dealing with the scope of methodology of economic sciences. He stressed the existence of an intermediate sphere between the science of political economics and the area of applied economics, which subject is situated not only within the economic perspective but also the moral dimension of economic activity of the society. Cf. Keynes (1955, 61–63).
- 14.
As far as the notion of “market society” is concerned, see: Polanyi (1944, 23–45).
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
D. G. Ritchie states that: “It seems to me quite certain that Corrective Justice is intended to apply to voluntary contracts, only when the terms of the contract have not been fulfilled” Ritchie (1894, p. 188).
- 18.
EN 1135 b 5–10.
- 19.
- 20.
Cf. a critique of Aristotelian concept of commutative justice presented by A. W. R. Harrison who states that: “The precise interpretation of Aristotle’s mathematical scheme here is notoriously difficult and I do not pretend to understand it fully.” Harrison (1957, 45); M. Wesoły endorses that: “(…) his conception of rectificatory justice seems to be somewhat strange and unsatisfactory”; cf. Wesoły (1989, 217–218). Similarly Hardie (1968, 191–192), del Vecchio (1956, 52–56) and Kelsen (1957, 135–136).
- 21.
For the application of this game to the solution of bargaining problem with reference to the Aristotelian theory of justice cf. Binmore (2005, 105).
- 22.
The same model of Rubinstein bargaining game has been implemented to solve the bargaining problem in Peenvyhouse v. Garland. Cf. Baird et al. (1995, 224–241).
Bibliography
Aristotle. 2006. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. and ed. R. Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arrow, K.J. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.
Atiyah, P.S. 1985. Contract and fair exchange. University of Toronto Law Journal 35: 1–24.
Anscomb, G.E.M., and P.T. Geach. 1961. Three philosophers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Baird, D.G., G.H. Gertner, and R.C. Picker. 1995. Game theory and the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Benson, P. 1992. The basis of corrective justice and its relation to distributive justice. Iowa Law Review 77: 515–624.
Binmore, K. 2005. Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
del Vecchio, G. 1956. Justice. A historical and philosophical essay. Ed. A.H. Campbell and Trans. Lady Guthrie. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Despotopoulos, C. 1968. La notion de σύνάλλάγμά chez Aristotle. Archives de philosophie du droit 13: 115–127.
Finley, M.I. 1970. Aristotle and economic analysis. Past and Present 5: 3–25.
Finnis, J. 1980. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gauthier, R.A., and J.Y. Jolif. 1958. L’Etique a Nicomacque, vol. II. Paris: Louvain.
Golecki, M.J. 2008. Synallagma. Filozoficzne podstawy odpowiedzialności kontraktowej [Synallagma. Philosophical foundations of contract]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Gordley, J. 1981. Equality in exchange. California Law Review 69: 1587–1656.
Gordley, J. 2001. Contract law in the Aristotelian tradition. In The theory of contract law: New essays, ed. P. Benson, 297–326. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamburger, M. 1951. Morals and law: The growth of Aristotle’s legal theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hardie, W.F.R. 1968. Aristotle’s ethical theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Harrison, R.W. 1957. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, book V and the law of Athens. Journal of Historical Studies 23: 42–47.
Jackson, H. 1879. The fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: The University Press.
Joachim, H.H. 1951. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, a commentary. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kelsen, H. 1957. What is justice? Berkeley: University of California Press.
Keynes, J.N. 1955. The scope and method of political economy, 4th ed. New York: Kelly & Millman.
Langholm, O. 1979. Price and value theory in the Aristotelian tradition. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Lee, H.D.P. 1937. The legal background of two passages in the Nichomachean Ethics. The Classical Quarterly 31: 129–140.
Lowry, S.T. 1969. Aristotle’s mathematical analysis of exchange. History of Political Economy 1: 44–60.
Maffi, A. 1980. Synallagma’ e obbligazioni in Aristotele: spunti critici. Atti II. Seminaria Romani Gardesano, 13–35. Milano.
Manthe, U. 1996. Beiträge zur Entwicklung des atiken Gerechtgkeitsbegriffes I: Die Mathematisierungdurch Pythagoras und Aristoteles. Zeitschrift der Savigny–Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Romanistische Abteilung 113: 1–31.
Meikle, S. 1990. Aristotle and exchange value. In A companion to Aristotle’s politics, ed. F. Miller and D. Keyt, 156–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meikle, S. 1995. Aristotle’s economic thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J.B. 2002. Equality in exchange. American Journal of Jurisprudence 47: 85–121.
Nash, J.F. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 50: 155–162.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation. New York: Rinehart.
Polanyi, K. 1957. Aristotle discovers the economy. In Trade and market in the early empires: Economies in history and theory, ed. K. Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg, and H.W. Pearson, 64–94. New York: The Free Press.
Posner, R. 1983. The economics of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pringsheim, F. 1950. The Greek law of sale. Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger.
Ritchie, D.G. 1894. Aristotle’s subdivision of particular justice. The Classical Review 8: 185–192.
Ross, W.D. 1953. Aristotle, 5th ed. London: Methuen.
Rubinstein, A. 1983. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50: 97–109.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1954. History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Soudek, J. 1952. Aristotle’s theory of exchange: An enquiry into the origins of economic analysis. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 45–59.
Tieben, B. 2009. The concept of equilibrium in different economic traditions. A historical investigation. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.
Weinrib, E. 1994. The gains and losses of corrective justice. Duke Law Journal 23: 277–297.
Wesoły, M. 1989. Aristotle’s conception of justice as equality. Eos 77: 211–220.
Winthrop, D. 1978. Aristotle and theories of justice. The American Political Science Review 72: 1201–1216.
Worland, S.T. 1984. Aristotle and the neoclassical tradition: The shifting ground of complementarity. History of Political Economy 16: 107–135.
Yack, B. 1990. Natural right and Aristotle’s understanding of justice. Political Theory 18: 216–237.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Golecki, M.J. (2013). Synallagma as a Paradigm of Exchange: Reciprocity of Contract in Aristotle and Game Theory. In: Huppes-Cluysenaer, L., Coelho, N. (eds) Aristotle and The Philosophy of Law: Theory, Practice and Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6031-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6031-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6030-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6031-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)