Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Signing Without Reading

  • Gerrit De GeestEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_569

Abstract

Most people sign standard term contracts without reading them. This gives drafters an incentive to insert one-sided, inefficient terms. This problem can be solved directly by giving the drafter a duty to draft efficient terms or indirectly by giving the signer a duty to read (which may remove the incentive to insert one-sided terms if a sufficient number of signers do read the contract). The problem can also be solved in a more draconian way by holding all standard terms unenforceable, irrespective of whether they are efficient or one-sided (as proposed by Radin, Margaret Jane, Boilerplate: the fine print, vanishing rights, and the rule of law. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2013). Finally, the problem can be solved through hybrid instruments – for instance, American law gives the signer a duty to read but intervenes when terms are unconscionable.

In this short chapter, written for Springer’s forthcoming Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (J. Backhaus, ed.), I argue that a duty to draft efficient terms is the superior instrument. Doctrinally, this means that unread contracts are best seen as agreements to delegate the drafting task to the party that can do so at least costs, as is the case under German law. Because rational parties will never give one of them a wildcard to insert inefficient terms, standard terms should be enforced only to the extent they are efficient. Moreover, economic logic dictates that it should be upon the drafter to prove that the terms are efficient, rather than upon the signer to prove that they are inefficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Charles F. Nagel Professor of International and Comparative Law and Director of the Center on Law, Innovation & Economic Growth, Washington University in St. Louis, School of Law. E-mail: degeest@wustl.edu. I thank Adam Badawi, Omri Ben-Shahar, Michael Greenfield, and Andrew Tuch for discussions that helped crystalize the main points of this paper. I also thank Philip Lenertz, Melissa Thevenot, and Amy Xu for helpful research assistance.

References

  1. Ayres I, Schwartz A (2014) The no reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Rev 66:545–610Google Scholar
  2. Bakos Y, Marotta-Wurgler F, Trossen DR (2014) Does anyone read the fine print? Testing a law and economics approach to standard form contracts. J Leg Stud 43:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Gill O, Warren E (2008) Making credit safer. Univ Pa Law Rev 157:1–101Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Shahar O (2013) Regulation through boilerplate: an apologia. Mich Law Rev 112:833–904Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Shahar O, Schneider CE (2014) More than you wanted to know: the failure of mandated disclosure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gazal-Ayal O (2007) Economic analysis of standard form contracts: the monopoly case. Eur J Law Econ 24:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldberg VP (1974) Institutional change and the Quasi-Invisible hard. J Law Econ 17:461–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hay BL, Spier KE (1997) Burdens of production in civil litigation: an economic perspective. J Leg Stud 26:413–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katz A (1990) The strategic structure of offer and acceptance: game theory and the law of contract formation. Mich Law Rev 89:215–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim NS (2013) Wrap contracts: foundations and ramifications. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marotta-Wurgler F (2009) Are “pay now, terms later” contracts worse for buyers? Evidence from software license agreements. J Leg Stud 38:309–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maxeiner JR (2003) Standard-terms contracting in the global electronic age: European alternatives. Yale J Int Law 28:109–182Google Scholar
  13. Radin MJ (2013) Boilerplate: the fine print, vanishing rights, and the rule of law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schwartz A, Wilde LL (1979) Intervening in markets on the basis of imperfect information: a legal and economic analysis? Univ Pa Law Rev 127:630–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shavell S (1984) Liability for harm versus regulation for safety. J Leg Stud 13:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shavell S (2013) A fundamental enforcement cost advantage of the negligence rule over regulation. J Leg Stud 42:275–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Slawson WD (1971) Standard form contracts and democratic control of lawmaking power. Harv Law Rev 84:529–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Trebilcock MJ, Dewees DN (1981) Judicial control of standard form contracts. In: Burrows P, Veljanovski CG (eds) The economic approach to law. Butterworths, London, pp 93–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA