Hatis: The Anti-Theoretical Nature of Civil Law Contract Scholarship and the Need for an Economic Theory similar number of theories developed for civil contract law? What this question calls attention to is the absence of contemporary grand theories(cf. Gazes 1995: 36 n59; 1997), that is, theories which purport to describe, interpret and even modify contract law in congruence with major philosophical, sociological, historical political or economic theories and which claim universality. By undermining the formalistic mentality that permeates law as a sup posedly autonomous discipline, grand theorizing has the potential of transforming legal theory from an anti-theoretical, parochial of social control If we look over the impressive literature published on con- tract law over the last two decades in the numerous Common law (especially American) journals and law reviews, we will discover lat the purely doctrinal studies have been confined to the loy ranking journals and universities, to the developments and sur veys of the law sections and to the comments and notes of student law review editors. Nearly all the well-known American contract scholars(and there are many) can be easily categorized according to their adherence to a specific theory, most of them being either “ neoclassical”or"“ economists" All of them discuss broadly theo 3 According to Gazes( 1995: 20, n. 20 and 26, n 32), codification symbolizes the end of laws development(or at least of its flourishing). For the problems related to codification in the field of contracts, see generally Hellner(1990)and lontai (1990). See also Kotz (1983) 4 Before World War Il, and especially in the era of the major codifications, a significant but dated discussion had taken place in continental Europe(esp Friedninly). The work of Friedrich Carl von Savignys historical school and Georg liberal and with no essential differences thought of Thibaut and Welcker)are examples of theoretical discussions that are absent today in continental Europe See mainly Reimann(1990) and Whitman(1990), and also Reimann(1991), lenner(1989), Ruckert(1989), Herget& Wallace(1987)and Joerges(1994) 5 When applied to contract law theory, the term"neoclassical"signifies some- thing quite different from "neoclassical economics", a term widely used to de- scribe mainstream economics. See Heijdra Lowenberg(1988), Lowenberg (1990), Medema Samuels(1996), and D Autume Cartelier(1997). How-Hatzis: The Anti-Theoretical Nature of Civil Law Contract Scholarship and the Need for an Economic Theory 4 similar number of theories developed for civil contract law?3 What this question calls attention to is the absence of contemporary4 grand theories (cf. Gazes 1995: 36 n.59; 1997), that is, theories which purport to describe, interpret and even modify contract law in congruence with major philosophical, sociological, historical, political or economic theories and which claim universality. By undermining the formalistic mentality that permeates law as a sup￾posedly autonomous discipline, grand theorizing has the potential of transforming legal theory from an anti-theoretical, parochial, interpretative technique into a science of social control. If we look over the impressive literature published on con￾tract law over the last two decades in the numerous Common law (especially American) journals and law reviews, we will discover that the purely doctrinal studies have been confined to the low￾ranking journals and universities, to the “developments and sur￾veys of the law” sections and to the comments and notes of student law review editors. Nearly all the well-known American contract scholars (and there are many) can be easily categorized according to their adherence to a specific theory, most of them being either “neoclassical”5 or “economists”.6 All of them discuss broadly theo- 3 According to Gazes (1995: 20, n.20 and 26, n.32), codification symbolizes the end of law's development (or at least of its flourishing). For the problems related to codification in the field of contracts, see generally Hellner (1990) and Lontai (1990). See also Kötz (1983). 4 Before World War II, and especially in the era of the major codifications, a significant but dated discussion had taken place in continental Europe (esp. Germany). The work of Friedrich Carl von Savigny's historical school and Georg Friedrich Puchta's conceptual jurisprudence (and also the less influential, more liberal and with no essential differences thought of Thibaut and Welcker) are examples of theoretical discussions that are absent today in continental Europe. See mainly Reimann (1990) and Whitman (1990), and also Reimann (1991), Klenner (1989), Ruckert (1989), Herget & Wallace (1987) and Joerges (1994). 5 When applied to contract law theory, the term “neoclassical” signifies some￾thing quite different from “neoclassical economics”, a term widely used to de￾scribe mainstream economics. See Heijdra & Lowenberg (1988), Lowenberg (1990), Medema & Samuels (1996), and D'Autume & Cartelier (1997). How-