that business is less interested in the issue of unified European contract law than we would expect, considering that business is supposed to be the first to benefit from uniform contract law. Reactions in favour of option 1(doing nothing) are found mainly among the reactions from business. Most reactions stress the freedom of contract. Others are hostile to doing more than revising the existing directives(option 3). Usually they add that minimum consumer protection should be replaced by full harmonisation which excludes national variations, resulting, of course, in generalizing the lowest protection level I think that this is not at all amazing. Enterprises are intent upon the freedom of contract, which enables them to protect themselves by their contractual conditions. as far as their legal environment permits it, they have to run their business as profitably as possible (wealth maximization). Protecting workers, customers or consumers is not their cup of tea. They are mainly interested in find ing contract partners whom they can trust. From an rules which may help if their trust turns out to be unjustified. If the other party does /or legal economic point of view, trust d iminishes transaction costs. 7 They are less interested in legal perform his part of the contract, many entrepreneurs will not cry over spilt milk. They will just try to make good the loss by means of subsequent contracts with more reliable partners Generally speaking enterprises tend to see matters of law as of minor importance in the whole problems to their lawyers, who will just try to minimize the damage siness circles leave legal field of commercial strategy. What is happening in practice is that bu against this background it is understandable that mattei in his recent paper Hard Code Now! has turned the argument of the needs of business upside down. 8 Business does not need the unification of European law. We need such unification to protect our society against business. Mattei speaks of corporate rapacity. Remember the race to the bottom Business will automatically seek the legal environment where protection of its potential contracting partners is weakest. Obviously, Mattei exaggerates when he relates this to post colonialism and the protection of our destitute brothers in Southern countries. But I think that in essence he is right. The counterpart of corporate rapacity is corporate responsibility,but it would be a mistake to put our trust in this rather vague concept 6. The fallacy of overemphasizing the political issue This brings me to the political aspect. Some writers, inspired by the United States critical legal studies, have argued that drafting a European contract law confronts us with two contrasting views. 9 The first one stresses the freedom of contract as a liberal concept B. Harvey, in B. Harvey(ed ) Business Ethics: A European Approach,. I. 1994, p. 11 U. MatteL, ' Hard Code Now,, I Global Jurist Frontiers, 2002, article 1 See, especially, M. Hesselink in a series of publications: M. Hesselink, The Structure of the New European Private Law, in E. Hondius and C Joustra(eds ) Netherlands Reports to the Sixteenth Internationa Congress of Comparative Law. Brisbane 2002, Antwerpen 2002, P. 7 ff, in particular. 9 ff, M. Hesselink, The Politics of European Contract Law, Global Jurist Frontiers, voL 2, issue 1, 2002, article 3; M. Hesselink, The PECL: Some Choices Made by the Lando Commission, in M. Hesselink and G.J. P. de vries, Principles of European Contract Law, preadv ies Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht, Deventer 2001, in particular p 53 ff.; and M. Hesselink, The New European Legal Culture, Deventer 2001, based on his inaugural lecture of 27 June 2001 at the Universiteit van amsterdamthat business is less interested in the issue of unified European contract law than we would expect, considering that business is supposed to be the first to benefit from uniform contract law. Reactions in favour of option 1 (doing nothing) are found mainly among the reactions from business. Most reactions stress the freedom of contract. Others are hostile to doing more than revising the existing directives (option 3). Usually they add that minimum consumer protection should be replaced by full harmonisation which excludes national variations, resulting, of course, in generalizing the lowest protection level. I think that this is not at all amazing. Enterprises are intent upon the freedom of contract, which enables them to protect themselves by their contractual conditions. As far as their legal environment permits it, they have to run their business as profitably as possible (wealth maximization). Protecting workers, customers or consumers is not their cup of tea. They are mainly interested in finding contract partners whom they can trust. From an economic point of view, trust diminishes transaction costs.17 They are less interested in legal rules which may help if their trust turns out to be unjustified. If the other party does not perform his part of the contract, many entrepreneurs will not cry over spilt milk. They will just try to make good the loss by means of subsequent contracts with more reliable partners. Generally speaking enterprises tend to see matters of law as of minor importance in the whole field of commercial strategy. What is happening in practice is that business circles leave legal problems to their lawyers, who will just try to minimize the damage. Against this background it is understandable that Mattei in his recent paper ‘Hard Code Now!’ has turned the argument of the needs of business upside down.18 Business does not need the unification of European law. We need such unification to protect our society against business. Mattei speaks of ‘corporate rapacity’. Remember the ‘race to the bottom’. Business will automatically seek the legal environment where protection of its potential contracting partners is weakest. Obviously, Mattei exaggerates when he relates this to post￾colonialism and the protection of our destitute brothers in Southern countries. But I think that in essence he is right. The counterpart of corporate rapacity is ‘corporate responsibility’, but it would be a mistake to put our trust in this rather vague concept. 6. The fallacy of overemphasizing the political issue This brings me to the political aspect. Some writers, inspired by the United States critical legal studies, have argued that drafting a European contract law confronts us with two contrasting views.19 The first one stresses the freedom of contract as a liberal concept, 17 B. Harvey, in B. Harvey (ed.), Business Ethics: A European Approach, s.l. 1994, p. 11. 18 U. Mattei, ‘Hard Code Now’, 1 Global Jurist Frontiers, 2002, article 1. 19 See, especially, M. Hesselink in a series of publications: M. Hesselink, ‘The Structure of the New European Private Law’, in E. Hondius and C. Joustra (eds.), Netherlands Reports to the Sixteenth International Congress of Comparative Law: Brisbane 2002, Antwerpen 2002, p. 7 ff, in particular p. 9 ff; M. Hesselink, ‘The Politics of European Contract Law’, Global Jurist Frontiers, vol. 2, issue 1, 2002, article 3; M. Hesselink, ‘The PECL: Some Choices Made by the Lando Commission’, in M. Hesselink and G.J.P. de Vries, Principles of European Contract Law, preadvies Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht, Deventer 2001, in particular p. 53 ff.; and M. Hesselink, The New European Legal Culture, Deventer 2001, based on his inaugural lecture of 27 June 2001 at the Universiteit van Amsterdam