Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics
Title
Publication Date
2009
Publication Title
Law & Economics Working Papers
Abstract
Two years after Penzoil v. Texaco threatened to burst the seam of contract formation and find binding commitments before negotiations ended, Judge Easterbrook stitched the rupture. His landmark decision in Empro v. Ball Co. held that a letter-of-intent, which is subject to the preparation of a more comprehensive formal document, is not binding. Each party can freely walk away from it prior to the closing, without incurring any liability and without the court scrutinizing the reasons for the negotiations breakdown. Many courts have since cited and followed Judge Easterbrook's approach. In this commentary, I argue that that this freedom to walk away from negotiations is too broad and in conflict with the ex ante interests of the parties. Intermediate liability at the pre-closing stage would induce more efficient levels of precontractual reliance, benefitting both parties. I develop one possible foundation for an intermediate liability regime and demonstrate how it would apply in the case.
Number
498
Recommended Citation
Omri Ben-Shahar, "Pre-Closing Liability" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 498, 2009).
Additional Information
Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere.