each other, and form[ a persuasive reason for the result. 4> Thus, concepts such as wrongdoing, unjust enrichment, contract, and property used in conjunction more often than not locate a problem on one side of the line or another, so that courts can reach an objective decision Waddams also asserts that conceding the law's complexity actually will help clarify legal decisions. Instead of distorting concepts to fit it into a particular conceptual framework, analysts can examine the concepts at work outside of a formal structure. In this way, the law avoids"the formulation of legal rules far wider than necessary to explain the result in the particular cases. fUrther, by relaxing conceptual boundaries, courts are less likely to engage in confusing and wasteful efforts to determine which concepts are supplemental, subordinate econdary, or subsidiary to the other, 48 when the truth is that they share the spotlight Waddams does not seek to tear down existing edifices completely, however. For example, he criticizes"the tendency to make too sharp a separation of legal concepts from each other, "suggesting that he approves of at least some separation. Waddams also defends contract law as"legal rules found, over several centuries, to have answered the needs of justice. Waddams is apparently content to describe more realistically the many dimensions of 45 Id. at: see also id. at 61... 142 47 Id at 34 48 Id at 165 Id. at 34 (emphasis added at 6812 each other, and form[] a persuasive reason for the result.”45 Thus, concepts such as wrongdoing, unjust enrichment, contract, and property used in conjunction more often than not locate a problem on one side of the line or another, so that courts can reach an objective decision. Waddams also asserts that conceding the law’s complexity actually will help clarify legal decisions.46 Instead of distorting concepts to fit it into a particular conceptual framework, analysts can examine the concepts at work outside of a formal structure. In this way, the law avoids “the formulation of legal rules far wider than necessary to explain the result in the particular cases.”47 Further, by relaxing conceptual boundaries, courts are less likely to engage in confusing and wasteful efforts to determine which concepts are supplemental, subordinate, secondary, or subsidiary to the other,”48 when the truth is that they share the spotlight. Waddams does not seek to tear down existing edifices completely, however. For example, he criticizes "the tendency to make too sharp a separation of legal concepts from each other," suggesting that he approves of at least some separation.49 Waddams also defends contract law as "legal rules found, over several centuries, to have answered the needs of justice."50 Waddams is apparently content to describe more realistically the many dimensions of 45 Id. at ; see also id. at 61, 106, 135, 142. 46 Id. at 2. 47 Id. at 34. 48 Id. at 165. 49 Id. at 34 (emphasis added). 50 Id. at 68