![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.krbecheklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/673173E.jpg\" "\\"Fresno")
<\/a><\/p>\nThat is a valid point.\u00a0 There are times when morality must be part of contract law.\u00a0 States Prof. Shiffrin, \u201cThe contract law invokes promise as the fundamental component of a contract but, puzzlingly, does not subject gratuitous breaches of contract (and hence breaches of promise) to the distinctive punitive measures endorsed and administered by law, save when those breaches are also torts.\u201d<\/p>\n
The argument continues.\u00a0 \u201cIf the law\u2019s rationale for the bar on punitive damages is that the prospect of punitive damages might discourage efficient breach of contract \u2013 I label this the efficient-breach rationale \u2013 then the divergence between morality\u2019s response to breach and the law\u2019s response to breach is problematic in ways that morally decent citizens cannot accept.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe efficient-breach rationale forwards a justification for a legal doctrine that consists in the claim that barring punitive damages would encourage and facilitate certain breaching behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBut this behavior is condemned by morality.\u00a0 To the extent the law adopts and embodies this rationale, it thereby embraces and tries to encourage and facilitate immoral behavior.\u00a0 Although the law need not enforce morality as such, it is problematic when the law, either directly, or by way of the justifications underlying the law, embraces and encourages immoral action<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Amen.\u00a0 It\u2019s about time someone steps up like this.\u00a0 The law of contracts should not turn a blind eye to contract that is immoral.<\/p>\n