The principle of freedom of Contract
The principle of freedom of contract is a fundamental element of the legal system that is strongly supported in both civil and common law systems. The principle of freedom of contract is violated when states or governments impair the right of citizens to enter contracts by limiting the choices that they can make with the agreement of the other parties to the contract. This principle has been recognized in court decisions and statutes since the very beginning of the common law system, however, the scope and implication of this right has changed over time.
The right of freedom of contract was first articulated in the English Magna Carta in 1215, which stated that no noble should be denied the right to “make treaties, declare war and make alliances”(Abbate and LaPaugh, 2020). The concept of freedom of contract entered into the English legal system in the seventeenth century, initially as a principle of contract law, and then, over time, became entrenched in the legal system as a fundamental pillar of our civil rights and liberties.
There are two main elements to the principle of freedom of contract. The first is that citizens should be free to enter into contracts with each other and exercise their own judgment in deciding the content and terms of the contract. The second is that government should not interfere in the process of private contracting parties to force them to accept terms that are contrary to their interests, or which undermine the public interest.
This principle of freedom of contract has been used as core justification for many of the important decisions that have shaped the modern legal system and the civil liberties we enjoy today. For example, the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 was based in part on the principle of freedom of contract, as it held that state governments could not limit the freedom of citizens to receive the same education regardless of race. Similarly, in the landmark cases Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, the Supreme Court used the principle of freedom of contract to strike down government statutes that would have denied Americans the right to private contraception and to receive medical care without government interference.
In addition to its historical importance in the evolution of civil and constitutional rights, the principle of freedom of contract has contemporary relevance, as it serves as a foundation stone for many commercial and private transactions. For example, many contracts in the area of employment and labor relations are based on the principle of freedom of contract and are necessary for the efficient operation of the modern economy. In this sense, freedom of contract is an essential indicator of democracy and the rule of law, and serves as an important reminder of the individual’s rights to autonomy and self-determination within our economic and civil system.
The principle of freedom of contract is not absolute, however, and there are various exceptions which either limit its scope or enable governments to interfere in private contracts in certain specific circumstances. These exceptions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and may include cases where the contract is contrary to public policy, or where the contract is based on fraud or misrepresentation, or otherwise cannot be enforced by law.
In the end, the principle of freedom of contract is central to the operation of the legal system. It is a core principle of the common law system and has been central in the development of civil liberties and privacy rights in both Europe and the United States. The right of citizens to enter into contracts under their own terms and conditions is essential in creating strong relationships and efficient transactions, and it is essential in allowing citizens the autonomy and self-determination to exercise their own good judgment in making decisions regarding their lives. As such, the principle of freedom of contract will continue to be an essential part of our legal system in the years to come.
