Contracts like promises do not cover all contingencies. How does the law respond when life outruns language and foresight? The chapter discusses ways in which a gap may arise in a contract, including the role of mistake, frustration, and impossibility. It also delves into the relationship of the doctrine of “letting the loss lies where it falls” and the draconian results that may entail, especially as compared with the fairer results of the concept of sharing losses. It then sets forth the principle that even if gaps occur in a contract, there are no gaps in the law: therefore residual principles of law must be used to fill any gaps.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.