Commentaries on Law& Economics, Vol. 2(2002) What the romans did not have were treatises on the law of contracts in general. We have them to superfluity. But then our day is much given to Total Theories Which Ex plain Everything(Except What Doesn't Fit Tony Weir(1992: 1646) I. The absence of Theory: Civil vs Common Contract Law L.l. Too Much Theory or Too Little Certainty? L. A monograph was published in 1997 under the title The Richness of Contract Law by the well-known American contract law scholar and Professor at cornell law school robert hillman The subtitle of the book, " An Analysis and Critique of Contempo- rary Theories of Contract Law"refers to a number of theories de- veloped in the Common law world (and especially in the United States)on contract law, a field of law ironically declared dead three decades ago(Gilmore 1974). However, in this paper, we will be discussing neither the thesis of the said book nor the problem of the life or death of contract We will rather be dealing with a question that is qui turbing for European scholars who comparatively approach can Common law, and that arises often as they browse through the voluminous literature on the theory of Common contract law of the past one hundred years(see mainly Hillman 1997, but also Barnett 1984 and 1989, Rakoff 1996 and esp. Cheffins 1999). This ques- tion is the following: Why isn't there a similarly rich literature or a 1"TO]n the whole, contract law suitably promotes the formation and enforce ment of private arrangements and ensures some degree of fairness in the ex- change process. Moreover, contract law largely succeeds because it is the prod uct of the legal systems reasonable and practical compromises over conflicting alues and interests. (Hillman 1997: 2 2 But see Farnsworth(1992) and also the symposium on The Death of Contract n90Nn.U.L.Rev.1(1995)Commentaries on Law & Economics, Vol. 2 ( 2002) 3 What the Romans did not have were treatises on the law of contracts in general. We have them to superfluity. But then our day is much given to Total Theories Which Ex￾plain Everything (Except What Doesn't Fit). Tony Weir (1992: 1646) 1. The Absence of Theory: Civil vs. Common Contract Law 1.1. Too Much Theory or Too Little Certainty? I. A monograph was published in 1997 under the title The Richness of Contract Law by the well-known American contract law scholar and Professor at Cornell Law School Robert Hillman. The subtitle of the book, “An Analysis and Critique of Contempo￾rary Theories of Contract Law” refers to a number of theories de￾veloped in the Common law world (and especially in the United States) on contract law, a field of law ironically declared dead three decades ago (Gilmore 1974). However, in this paper, we will be discussing neither the thesis of the said book1 nor the problem of the life or death of contract.2 We will rather be dealing with a question that is quite dis￾turbing for European scholars who comparatively approach Ameri￾can Common law, and that arises often as they browse through the voluminous literature on the theory of Common contract law of the past one hundred years (see mainly Hillman 1997, but also Barnett 1984 and 1989, Rakoff 1996 and esp. Cheffins 1999). This ques￾tion is the following: Why isn't there a similarly rich literature or a 1 “[O]n the whole, contract law suitably promotes the formation and enforce￾ment of private arrangements and ensures some degree of fairness in the ex￾change process. Moreover, contract law largely succeeds because it is the prod￾uct of the legal system's reasonable and practical compromises over conflicting values and interests.” (Hillman 1997: 2). 2 But see Farnsworth (1992) and also the symposium on The Death of Contract in 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (1995)