This is a pretty straigtforward question- but I left class today unsure of what the difference is between the procedural and substantive parts of an agreement- can anyone explain?

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

Answers

Perhaps this helps...?

As I recall, Meredith, the procedural part of a contract is the framework--whether in fact there was consideration, etc., while the substantive part deals with the fairness of the transaction.

Or not. Backup, anyone?

Paul

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

I think you're right

Meredith and Paul, I think that you're right about procedural and substantive contracts. In my mind, I envision the procedural aspect to include whether or not both parties have perfect information, the terms and consideration of the agreement, etc. The Substantive part is a bit more abstract to me. I believe that it involves what was actually exchanged and therefore, as you mentioned, the fairness of the transaction. Correct me if i'm wrong, but to use an example from Batsakis, I think the Procedural contract is what was written and shown to the court, while the substantive contract was the understanding that the two parties had regarding the exchange of $25 for $2000. -Jessica

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1998

is this helpful?

I wonder if Lessig's distinctions are meant to be based on the distinction made by Sandel - 1) Procedural justice: "...morality consists in the voluntary character of the transaction" 2) Substantive justice: "...morality depends on the underlying fairness of the exchange"

So maybe Lessig was talking about which parts of each case you would look at to evaluate each type of justice. I don't know if that's right - just an idea.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1998