ESTABLISHING CLINICAL RELEVANCE IN PRECLINICAL ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Abstract

“The view that there is something wrong with a person’s breaching a contract is widely held. I argue here that this view is misleading—essentially because the particular contingency that led to a breach will often not have been explicitly addressed in a contract. If so, we will not know if the breach should be considered immoral, for we will not know whether the parties would have required performance had they addressed the contingency that arose. However, we can make an important inference if expectation damages must be paid for a breach: The breach probably was not immoral, since the breaching party’s willingness to pay expectation damages suggests that performance would not have been re-quired in a contract providing explicitly for the contingency that occurred. This conclusion is related to breach and damages in practice, to a survey that I conducted about the morality of breach, and to the opinions of com-mentators on the morality of breach and on the ‘efficiency’ of breach