Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/174495 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2017
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
Preprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods No. 2017/16
Verlag: 
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn
Zusammenfassung: 
On the doctrinal surface, there is a deep divide between common and continental law when it comes to the origin of contractual obligations. Under continental law, in principle a unilateral promise suffices. Common law by contrast requires consideration. When it comes to deciding cases, the divide is much less pronounced. But for the most part the law does not govern people's lives through adjudication. It matches or molds their moral intuitions. We test these intuitions in the lab. If consideration is required, participants believe that all participants make more ambitious promises. But they themselves make a more cautious promise. These two effects cancel out, so that promises are not more likely to be kept with consideration.
Schlagwörter: 
contract
obligation
promise
consideration
experiment
modified dictator game
JEL: 
C91
D02
D03
D12
D64
H41
K12
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
460.92 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.