work for only $2 an hour. In many jurisdictions, a duty of good faith is injected, as an act of law, into the terms of every contract Some states prohibit firms from terminating employees for reasons that are contrary to the public interest, even when the agreement between the employee and employer provides for "at will "employment. These are only a few of the "exceptions"in the law of contract, 0 and the contract metaphor cannot be applied to corporate law without an exploration of why any number of exceptions should not be applied as well Similarly, to say that the shareholders"own the company is unhelpful without a description of why certain aspects of property law are relevant and others are not. Notwithstanding the"illusion of absoluteness that accompanies much property-rights rhetoric, property has always been subject to reasonable regulation. The broad principle that one should not use one's property to inflict harm on others has been"routinely applied"in U.S. courts since the nations beginning. 2 The Supreme Court recognized over 150 years ago that"[w ]hile the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have [sic]rights. 3 A property owner cannot burn noxious trash in her backyard so as to cause a nuisance to her neighbors, for example, and a factory owner may not operate a factory that is unreasonably dangerous to the employees working there. To use the metaphors of property or contract as a normative argument therefore is unhelpful without an explanation SSee Restatement(Second), Contracts S 205(1979) See, e.g., Derose v. Putnam Management Co, 398 Mass. 205(1986); Hobson v. Mclean Hosp. Corporation, 402 Mass. 413(1988) I See, e. g, Sternamen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170NY. 13, 18, 62N E. 763(1902) (The power to contract is not unlimited. While as a general rule there is the utmost freedom of action in this regard, some restrictions are placed upon the right by legislation, by public policy and by the nature of things. Parties cannot make a binding contract in violation of law or public policy. II See marY aNN glendon rights talk: THe IMPoVERISHMENT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 18,20(1991) ld. at 25 IGLENDON, Supra note 11, at 26(citing Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S (11Pet)420,548(1937)8See Restatement (Second), Contracts § 205 (1979). 9See, e.g., Derose v. Putnam Management Co., 398 Mass. 205 (1986); Hobson v. McLean Hosp. Corporation., 402 Mass. 413 (1988). 10See, e.g., Sternamen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 N.Y. 13, 18, 62 N.E. 763 (1902) (“The power to contract is not unlimited. While as a general rule there is the utmost freedom of action in this regard, some restrictions are placed upon the right by legislation, by public policy and by the nature of things. Parties cannot make a binding contract in violation of law or public policy.”). 11See MARY ANN GLENDON, RIGHTS TALK:THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 18, 20 (1991). 12Id. at 25. 13GLENDON, supra note 11, at 26 (citing Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 548 (1937)). 4 work for only $2 an hour. In many jurisdictions, a duty of good faith is injected, as an act of law, into the terms of every contract.8 Some states prohibit firms from terminating employees for reasons that are contrary to the public interest, even when the agreement between the employee and employer provides for “at will” employment.9 These are only a few of the “exceptions” in the law of contract,10 and the contract metaphor cannot be applied to corporate law without an exploration of why any number of “exceptions” should not be applied as well. Similarly, to say that the shareholders “own” the company is unhelpful without a description of why certain aspects of property law are relevant and others are not. Notwithstanding the “illusion of absoluteness” that accompanies much property-rights rhetoric, property has always been subject to reasonable regulation.11 The broad principle that one should not use one’s property to inflict harm on others has been “routinely applied” in U.S. courts since the nation’s beginning.12 The Supreme Court recognized over 150 years ago that “[w]hile the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have [sic] rights.”13 A property owner cannot burn noxious trash in her backyard so as to cause a nuisance to her neighbors, for example, and a factory owner may not operate a factory that is unreasonably dangerous to the employees working there. To use the metaphors of property or contract as a normative argument therefore is unhelpful without an explanation