mentaries on Law Economics, Vol 2(2002) retical issues, even when they set out to solve particular doctrinal problems(cf Cheffins 1999: 199-200) ever, the similarities go beyond the mainstream status. I would characterize the neoclassical theory of contracts as a rather amateurish attempt on the part of con- tract scholars(in Common law under the legacy of equity"and in Roman Civil law of ius praetorium)to keep in touch with the developments of economic the ory after World War Il (i.e. economic neoclassicism) rather than to"socialize contract law. This is mostly true for the U.S.A, but also for Europe. See Hatzis (2000c) 6 From an ongoing citation study on American contract law which I am currently conducting, some preliminary findings are characteristic: In over 250 contract law articles, books or chapters most of which have been published after 1980 the scholars with more than fifty citations are [in alphabetical order, since the findings are preliminary and although there is a vast disparity of almost 140 cita- tions between the first scholar(190)and the last]: Patrick Atiyah(Neoclassical) Randy Barnett (Consent/Libertarianism), Ronald Coase (Economics/Neo- Institutionalism), Arthur Corbin(Neoclassical), Melvin Aron Eisenberg(Neo- classical), Richard Epstein (Libertarianism/Economics), Grant Gilmore(Neo- classical/ Death of Contract "theory), E. Allan Farnsworth(Neoclassical), Lon Fuller(Neoclassical), Duncan Kennedy(Cls), Friedrich Kessler(Neoclassical), Anthony Kronman(Economics-Neoclassical), Stewart Macaulay(Relational- Empirical-Sociological), lan Macneil(Relational), Oliver W. Holmes(Classi cal), Richard Posner(Economics), Alan Schwartz(Economics), Robert Scott (Economics), Michael Trebilcock (Economics), Samuel Williston(Classical) The authors who immediately follow have also been heavily influenced by the theory of others or have formulated theories of their own( Calabresi, Feinman, Fried, Friedman, Goetz, Horwitz, Leff, Llewellyn, Williamson, etc. ) Below them on this list. there are about 20 other scholars with more than 25 citations the"less theoretical"among them being robert Hillman, Robert Summers and Richard Speidel, who are of course not innocent of theory! The first three books cited are (in alphabetical order) Frieds Contract as Promise, Gilmore's The Death of Contract and Posner's Economic Analysis of Law. The treatises of Corbin and Williston follow. The first four articles are (in alphabetical order) Coase's"The Problem of Social Cost", Epstein,'s"Unconscionability" Fuller Perdue's"The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages"(cf. Barnett 1995: 3)and Macaulay's"Non-Contractual Relations in Business. Any comments are redun 7 In a broadly discussed and much-disputed essay, Judge Edwards accused con temporary American legal theory of being impractical and overly theoretical thus neglecting the two important functions of the law school: to teach studentsCommentaries on Law & Economics, Vol. 2 ( 2002) 5 retical issues, even when they set out to solve particular doctrinal problems (cf. Cheffins 1999: 199-200).7 ever, the similarities go beyond the mainstream status. I would characterize the neoclassical theory of contracts as a rather amateurish attempt on the part of con￾tract scholars (in Common law under the legacy of “equity” and in Roman Civil law of ius praetorium) to keep in touch with the developments of economic the￾ory after World War II (i.e. economic neoclassicism) rather than to “socialize” contract law. This is mostly true for the U.S.A., but also for Europe. See Hatzis (2000c). 6 From an ongoing citation study on American contract law which I am currently conducting, some preliminary findings are characteristic: In over 250 contract law articles, books or chapters most of which have been published after 1980, the scholars with more than fifty citations are [in alphabetical order, since the findings are preliminary and although there is a vast disparity of almost 140 cita￾tions between the first scholar (190) and the last]: Patrick Atiyah (Neoclassical), Randy Barnett (Consent/Libertarianism), Ronald Coase (Economics/Neo￾Institutionalism), Arthur Corbin (Neoclassical), Melvin Aron Eisenberg (Neo￾classical), Richard Epstein (Libertarianism/Economics), Grant Gilmore (Neo￾classical/“Death of Contract” theory), E. Allan Farnsworth (Neoclassical), Lon Fuller (Neoclassical), Duncan Kennedy (CLS), Friedrich Kessler (Neoclassical), Anthony Kronman (Economics→Neoclassical), Stewart Macaulay (Relational￾Empirical-Sociological), Ian Macneil (Relational), Oliver W. Holmes (Classi￾cal), Richard Posner (Economics), Alan Schwartz (Economics), Robert Scott (Economics), Michael Trebilcock (Economics), Samuel Williston (Classical). The authors who immediately follow have also been heavily influenced by the theory of others or have formulated theories of their own (Calabresi, Feinman, Fried, Friedman, Goetz, Horwitz, Leff, Llewellyn, Williamson, etc.). Below them on this list, there are about 20 other scholars with more than 25 citations, the “less theoretical” among them being Robert Hillman, Robert Summers and Richard Speidel, who are of course not innocent of theory! The first three books cited are (in alphabetical order): Fried's Contract as Promise, Gilmore's The Death of Contract and Posner's Economic Analysis of Law. The treatises of Corbin and Williston follow. The first four articles are (in alphabetical order): Coase's “The Problem of Social Cost”, Epstein's “Unconscionability”, Fuller & Perdue's “The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages” (cf. Barnett 1995: 3) and Macaulay's “Non-Contractual Relations in Business.” Any comments are redun￾dant. 7 In a broadly discussed and much-disputed essay, Judge Edwards accused con￾temporary American legal theory of being impractical and overly theoretical, thus neglecting the two important functions of the law school: to teach students