Wednesday, April 13, 2005
What do you hate most about commercial law? The pointless circularity of some UCC definitions? The pathological reliance on "reasonableness"? The definition of "finance lease"? Llewellyn's tortuous writing style? Cardozo opinions? Easterbrook opinions? Pacific Gas? Trident Center? The fact that numbers are involved?
Whatever it is, our friends at the AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law have got a panel for you: Commercial Calamities, or What I Hate Most About Commercial Law. It’s scheduled for the AALS Annual meeting this coming January. So get out your knives, test the blade with your thumb, and get ready to participate. Click on the link for the call for papers.
A Call for Proposals
At January's AALS meeting, the topic for the Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law will be "Commercial Calamities." This could be subtitled "What I Hate Most about Commercial Law." What we have in mind is a series of presentations about the aspect of commercial law most disliked by each of a range of scholars. I t could be as focused as one section or subsection of the Code, or one especially odious though prominent judicial decision. It could be the coverage of the Code -- should some groups or types of transactions be in? Be out? It could be the existence of the Code as state law. It could be the structure of the Code, or of some part of the Code. It could be the means of drafting or revising the Code. It could be the state of commercial law scholarship.
This topic has two aspects. One will of course be the session at AALS, which has been scheduled for Saturday, January 7 at 1:30. We will leave plenty of time for comment, as we're sure that those present will have their own horrors to relate -- and, for that matter, may take issue with the choices of the panelists. The other is a written symposium. We're in the midst of discussions with a number of law reviews. Here we plan to publish a series of essays, more lightly footnoted than the usual law review fare and, we hope, more readable as well, in which the authors relate their least favorite aspects of our most favorite topic. We'll have more people writing than speaking, with the presenters at AALS providing a cross-section of those participating in the written version. We anticipate that the essays would be due in March 2006, for publication that Fall.
We would like to get a range of contributors taking a range of perspectives on this engaging and perhaps controversial topic. We have already started soliciting contributions, and we've had favorable responses from such luminaries as Robert Hillman (Cornell), Robert Scott (Virginia), James White (Michigan), Amy Boss (Temple) and Neil Cohen (Brooklyn). Now how about you? We wish to reserve some spots for open submissions. Just send us an abstract of 300-800 words, indicating your desired target and choice of ammunition. Send it to Chair Larry Garvin by Friday, May 13. The members of the Executive Committee not putting forth proposals will winnow the proposals and let all know promptly thereafter. Many thanks, and don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions.