The case of coercion raises many and varied legal questions. This article focuses on the following question: What is the law in the case of a contract which was made under coercion, but its contents are fair and balanced, and it serves the interests of each sides respectively? Will the emphasis be placed on the fact that the contract was made in a flawed manner, or on the fact that its result is fair and balanced? The importance of this question goes well beyond the defined bounds of the specific case; it impacts on the entire body of the laws of coercion, and to a certain extent, on contract law in general. In an earlier article I dealt with the fundamental questions of the laws of coercion as they are reflected in talmudic discussions; in this article I shall examine the creative and complex developments introduced by the post-talmudic decisors. I shall argue that new judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court, which mark out new possible directions for dealing with contracts that were made under coercion, may find surprising anchors and fruitful sources of inspiration in the manner in which the decisors of Jewish law dealt with similar cases.
|Translated title of the contribution||Contracts under Coercion and Substantive Justice: A Study of the Responsa Literature|
|Title of host publication||קובץ משפטי ארץ|
|Number of pages||27|
|State||Published - 2016|
- Contracts (Jewish law)
- Justice (Jewish theology)