Anyone know much re: the Indian Contract Act 1872 and some of the fundamental differences between it and a libertarian theory of contracts? I’m assuming there are some differences and I just need a primer on them, nothing exhaustive. I have an aquaintance who implies that a libertarian theory is archaic and that I need something more “updated” and “newer” and he cited the aforementioned Act and the work(s) of S.S. Gulshan.
I am familiar with the Indian Contract Act and studied it in college.
It is exactly identical to English contract law, which is what is followed in US, Canada, Australia, and some other countries as well. There is absolutely no difference. All case laws followed are also from England.
As it is, English classical liberals have had a big role in creation of such laws and I can’t imagine what objection a modern day liberal would have.
Prateek, Thanks for your reply. After further dialogue with my aquaintance on this subject and his mention of S.S. Gulshan and corporate law, it appears that what he (my aquaintance) is getting at is that “public” schools and their employees are, in essence, a “community” business and that the contracts of said employees should be/are to be viewed through this lens.
I believe I see where he is going with this now, as a view such as this would seem to necessarily lead to NOT looking at the issue from the perspective of property rights to be exercised by those who fund these “schools” to begin with, the tax-payers. In short, I guess what I am saying is that if one holds the view that he does (the “school” and the contracts being “corporate”), the tax-payer will ultimately end up with nothing more than a bill of goods, having been effectively “shut- out” of the “corporation”. Does this make sense? Is there anything else you can, or would like to add? Thanks again!