Home Boilerplate and contractual language: Pseudo-contract or blanket assent?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Boilerplate and contractual language: Pseudo-contract or blanket assent?

  • Brian E. Butler

    Brian E. Butler has a PhD in Philosophy from Claremont and a JD in law from the University of Chicago. He is the author of multiple articles and books. His monograph, The Democratic Constitution: Experimentalism and Interpretation (Chicago, 2017), argues for a pragmatic reading of the US Constitution. His most recent work centers on the work of the American Legal Realists in relation to the pragmatist tradition.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 2, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

In this article I analyze Kar and Radin’s critique of boilerplate text in contract. The problems identified in boilerplate are significant. I then describe the test that they offer to distinguish between proper contract and “pseudo-contract” in boilerplate. The test is constructed upon the use of Gricean Maxims slightly modified for the context of contract law. Next, Karl Llewellyn’s test for boilerplate is described. Ultimately, through the use of a couple of examples it is argued that Llewellyn’s test is a better option. Even with this result, much of the Kar and Radin critique of boilerplate is significant and valuable.


Corresponding author: Brian E. Butler, University of North Carolina, Asheville, USA, E-mail:

About the author

Brian E. Butler

Brian E. Butler has a PhD in Philosophy from Claremont and a JD in law from the University of Chicago. He is the author of multiple articles and books. His monograph, The Democratic Constitution: Experimentalism and Interpretation (Chicago, 2017), argues for a pragmatic reading of the US Constitution. His most recent work centers on the work of the American Legal Realists in relation to the pragmatist tradition.

References

Bianchi, Claudia. 2016. What did you (legally) say? Cooperative and strategic interactions. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 185–199. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_9Search in Google Scholar

Butler, Brian E. 2001. The legal studies forum, is all law unavoidably interpretive? Legal Studies Forum 25. 315–329.Search in Google Scholar

Butler, Brian E. 2016. Law and the primacy of pragmatics. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 1–13. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_1Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2013. Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In Michael Freeman & Fiona Smith (eds.), Law and language, 8–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2016a. The role of pragmatics in (re)constructing the rational law-maker. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 141–157. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_7Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2016b. What can pragmatics learn from the law? On Recanti’s cases of modulation, indirect reporting, and cancellability of explicatures. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, 371–394. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_14Search in Google Scholar

Charnock, Ross. 2016. Legal positivism and the pragmatics of meaning and morality. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 159–184. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_8Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Felix. 1935. Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Review 5. 809–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/1116300.Search in Google Scholar

Dascal, Marcelo & Jerzy Wroblewski. 1988. Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law and Philosophy 7. 203–224.10.1007/BF00144156Search in Google Scholar

Gilmore, Grant. 1974. The death of contract. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jori, Mario. 2016. Legal pragmatics. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 33–60. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_3Search in Google Scholar

Kar, Robin Bradley & Margaret Jane Radin. 2019. Pseudo-contract and shared meaning analysis. Harvard Law Review 132. 1125–1219.10.2139/ssrn.3072817Search in Google Scholar

Llewellyn, Karl N. 1958. Advancement of the law. University of Chicago Law School Record 7. 18–31.Search in Google Scholar

Llewellyn, Karl N. 1960a. The common law tradition: Deciding appeals. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Search in Google Scholar

Llewellyn, Karl N. 1960b. Jurisprudence, By Roscoe Pound. University of Chicago Law Review 28. 174–182.10.2307/1598381Search in Google Scholar

Llewellyn, Karl N. 1989. The case law system in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lloyd, Harold Anthony. 2016. Law’s “way of words”: Pragmatics and textualist error. Creighton Law Review 49. 221–292.10.2139/ssrn.2658278Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio, Walton Douglas & Giovanni Sartor. 2018. Pragmatic maxims and presumptions in legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy 31(2). 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9306-4.Search in Google Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg. 2023. On commitment to untruthful implicatures. Intercultural Pragmatics 20(1). 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2023-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Morra, Lucia. 2016. Widening the Gricean picture to strategic exchanges. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 201–229. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_10Search in Google Scholar

Poggi, Francesca. 2016. Grice, the law, and the special case thesis. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 231–248. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_11Search in Google Scholar

Pound, Roscoe. 1908. Mechanical jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review 8. 605–623. https://doi.org/10.2307/1108954.Search in Google Scholar

Radin, Margaret Jane. 2013. Boilerplate: The fine print, vanishing rights, and the Rule of law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400844838Search in Google Scholar

Solum, Lawrence B. 2019. Contractual communication. Harvard Law Review 133. 23–74.10.2139/ssrn.3363616Search in Google Scholar

Villa, Vittorio. 2016. Deep interpretive disagreements and theory of legal interpretation. In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives, 89–119. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_5Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2023-06-02
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 24.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ip-2023-3001/html
Scroll to top button