Publication Date


Publication Title

Osgoode Hall Law Journal


Autonomy-based theories hold that enforceable contracts require the knowing and voluntary consent of the parties. In defining "knowing" and "voluntary," however, autonomy theorists have paid little attention to the remedy that will be granted if consent is round to be lacking, or to the question of what obligations (if any) will be enforced in place of the unconsented-to contract. In this paper, I expand on Michael Trebilcock's argument that considerations of institutional competence-specifically, the relative ability of courts and private actors to craft acceptable substitute obligations-should sometimes play a key role in defining what counts as "knowing" and "voluntary" consent.

Included in

Law Commons