Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Solicitation Fraud: The Important Difference Between “Not Intending to” and “Intending Not to”
|
Wednesday, October 05, 2016
Solicitation Fraud: The Important Difference Between “Not Intending to” and “Intending Not to”
Ian Ayres
Ian Ayres and Greg Klass
Touro law professor, Dan Subotnik,
has published
an extended email exchange that helps to teach an important legal and moral
differences between “never intending” and “intending never.” The email exchange
purports to be a dialogue between himself and an unnamed student law review
editor (identified only as “Jim”) concerning an article that Professor Subotnik
submitted to an unnamed journal. After a follow-up inquiry from Professor
Subotnik, the journal offered to publish the article, but after requesting more
time Professor Subotnik rejected offer. The following email exchange ensued:
Professor
Subotnik: After consultation with my
dean, I have determined not to accept publication this go-round and to rework
and then re-submit the article next semester.
Jim: Oh my God. You are
withdrawing your article after all that?
Professor Subotnik: I’m
afraid so.
Jim: We are so
beyond—below—the pale that nothing is better than our journal?
Professor Subotnik:
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that.
Jim: How else should I interpret your message other
than that everything you have said to us is a lie?
Professor Subotnik: I
just saw that my article had flaws that needed attention. Nothing more.
Jim: Students at lower-tier law schools are not as
dim-witted as you think. Let’s get real here for a change. The flaws seemed to
have revealed themselves only after you failed to get the offer you had hoped
for. The delays were for the purpose of leveraging our offer with higher
ranking law reviews. Your dean then told you that we were not respectably
enough ranked for our imprimatur to do your school any good.
Professor Subotnik: You
obviously know all about the ranking system. So what’s your gripe?
Jim: Simple. Why did you not look into that matter before
you submitted and began toying with us? What did we do to you? We spent hours
on your article and could not give other submissions the attention that they
deserved.
Professor Subotnik: You
are making an issue over that? You have nothing else to do?
Jim: Is exploring the
coverage of the Golden Rule too trite a project for a professor of ethics?
Professor
Subotnik: OK, I did not think much about
my submissions at the time. But in any event, you were playing me the same way
by not making me an offer, hoping that a higher-placed author than I would fall
into your lap. My point is that there is a marketplace for law review articles
and that marketplace has rules. I was playing by those rules. This is what we
professors call a teaching moment. As a seasoned contracts person, I can assure
you that there is no implied promise in a submission that the author will
accept one of the offers received.
The exchange is compelling for several reasons – including
the surfaced emotions as the participants “get real.” But it can also teach us
something about promissory
fraud.
All we know about the transaction is via the above email
exchange. Based on that, it might be that Professor Subotnik has done
nothing wrong. And we agree with him that there was no “implied promise
in a submission that the author will accept one of the offers received.”
That said, if a solicitation does not include an implied promise to accept an
offer, it might still include an implied representation about one’s
intentions. Specifically, we worry that Professor Subotnik might have
engaged in what might be termed “solicitation fraud.”
Jim appears to be concerned that in submitting his article
for consideration, Professor Subotnik misrepresented his true purpose or intent
so as to induce the journal to review the piece and possibly make an offer of
publication. Jim suspects that rather than submitting because he was
interested in publishing in the journal, Professor Subotnik wanted an offer so
that he could use it as leverage with other journals. Contract law
presumes that by promising, a promissor implicitly represents that she intends
to perform her promise. But does someone who solicits an offer make any
implicit representations about his or her intent regarding subsequent
acceptance?
We think yes. Professor Subotnik would be legally and
morally culpable if, in soliciting, he intended never to accept an offer from
that journal. Professor Subotnik at least implicitly represented that he
did not intend not to accept an offer that he himself solicited.
There is an important difference between not intending to
do something and intending not to do it. Professor Subotnik might
be in the clear if he merely did not intend to accept an offer from this
review. One can imagine that a soliciting professor would want to wait
until learning more from other journals before forming an intent whether or not
to accept an offer from a particular journal. This is perhaps consistent
with Professor Subotnik’s subsequent statement that he “did not think much
about my submissions at the time.” Merely lacking an intent (not
intending) to accept an offer that one has solicited is not necessarily wrong.
If, however, Professor Subotnik solicited an offer from
Jim’s review with, at the time of solicitation, an affirmative intention not to
accept any such offer, Jim has a right to feel ill-used. Soliciting an offer
does not represent an intent to accept it. But we think it at least represents
that one will be open to an offer—that the soliciting party does not presently
intend to not accept such an offer.
The possibility of solicitation fraud is an example of how
someone who procures an option can, somewhat surprisingly, commit fraud on the
option writer. An offer, after all gives, the offeree an option to accept
or not. In our 2005 book, Insincere
Promises: The Law of Misrepresented Intent, we provide a hypothetical
example using two hypothetical New York property magnates, Leona and Donald, as
our dramatis personae:
While the purchase of an option does not represent an intent to exercise it, it typically suggests that the purchaser does not intend not to do so. Suppose Leona acquires from Donald an option to purchase a piece of land suitable for a shopping mall not because she is thinking of building on the site, but because she intends to build a mall two blocks away and wants to prevent Bruce, her competitor, from purchasing and developing Donald’s site. There is a strong intuition that in purchasing the option with an affirmative intent not to exercise it, Leona has committed promissory fraud. Donald has sold the option based on the assumption that Leona is at least considering purchasing the property, a fact that is reflected in the option price. Now we could allow Leona to opt-out of the default representation that she is at least considering buying the property. * * * But if Donald knows that Leona may well intend not to exercise the option, he will raise the option price so that he profits even if she doesn’t purchase.
If
Leona intends not to exercise the option, she should forthrightly contract with
Donald not to sell his land next year. Pursing the cheaper option is a
species of fraud. Even though Leona doesn’t represent that she intends to
exercise her option, her option contract seems to imply that she does not
intend not to exercise it.
Professor
Subotnik position is analogous to Leona’s. By soliciting an offer from
Jim’s journal, he was trying to obtain an option to accept it. If—and we
emphasize that we do not know all the facts here—Professor Subotnik intended
not to exercise the option, but planned to use it to leverage offers from
higher ranked journal, he would have defrauded Jim’s journal. Of course
he might have forthrightly revealed that he sought an offer that intended not
to accept. But then the law review knowing that it was merely being used as a
stalking horse likely would have refused to consider his submission, or would
have sought to be compensated for their effort.
An
analogous dynamic is described in the famous Delaware Chancery case, Smith
v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (1985) in which Jay Pritzker initiated a
taker-over discussion with Trans-Union’s CEO, Jerome Van Gorkom. During
the negotiation:
Van Gorkom stated that to be sure that [Pritzker’s] $55 [price per share offer] was the best price obtainable, Trans Union should be free to accept any better offer. Pritzker demurred, stating that his organization would serve as a "stalking horse" for an "auction contest" only if Trans Union would permit Pritzker to buy 1,750,000 shares of Trans Union stock at market price which Pritzker could then sell to any higher bidder.
Similarly,
if Professor Subotnik made clear that the law review’s offer was being used a stalking horse
to secure other law review offers, Jim’s law review might have sought something
akin to a break-up fee.
So far all of our examples have involved call options. But
there can also be instances misrepresented intention with regard to put
options. As we suggested in Insincere Promises:
Imagine the promisor who buys formal wear (with a satisfaction guaranteed return policy) with the intent of returning the garment after wearing it to the prom. While the call option fraud concerned a promisor who intended not to exercise, the put option fraud concerns a purchaser with a put who never intends not to exercise.
We can imagine a prom
dress buyer, who at the time of buying intends not to keep it after the
ball. It is not sufficient for this temporary buyer to say “there is a
marketplace for [prom dress] and that marketplace has rules [and] I was playing
by those rules.” We doubt that Professor Subotnik would countenance the
prom-dress purchase with an ex ante intention to return, although it is
analytically analogous to a submission solicitation with an ex ante intention
not to accept.
A simple test provides a guide in all of these
contexts: If the potential defrauder had revealed her true intent, would
the other side have relied? If the answer is no, then there is a
colorable promissory fraud. If the solicitor revealed that she intended
not to accept any forthcoming offer, then no uncompensated offer would be
forthcoming. If Leona, the call option purchaser, revealed she intended
not to exercise her option, the option writer would have charged a different
option price. If the prom dress buyer revealed her intention not to keep
the dress, the seller would have charged a different (rental) price. Professor
Subotnik speaks of “what we professors call a teaching moment.” But among
contractual equals, the appropriate time for teaching the other side of your
true intention is at the time of the original solicitation.
Again, we want to be clear here. The email exchange does not
establish that Professor Subotnik (implicitly) misrepresented his
intention. He might have merely not intended to accept an offer from this
review. Or he might have intended to accept and then changed his mind after
consulting with his dean and discovering “flaws that needed attention.”
But the exchange does suggest that Professor Subotnik was not well attuned to
how implicit representations of intent can give rise to legal and moral
concerns. And for our purposes, this submission kerfuffle nicely
illuminates the possibility of “solicitation fraud.” People who solicit
offers can defraud by implicitly misrepresenting their intention with regard to
whether or not they will accept the offer. Not intending to accept—being
uncertain—is presumptively okay; intending not to exercise, without making that
intention clear in advance, is presumptively wrong.
There is a larger point here. Oliver Wendell Holmes
observed, “If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as
a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge
enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct,
whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of
conscience.” It is therefore sometimes important for lawyers to sometimes
take the perspective of the bad man. It does not follow, however, that this is
the correct attitude for legal actors to take. Parties bargain for more
than legal rights, privileges, powers and immunities. They bargain
against common understanding of each other’s attitudes and intentions.
Contract law takes note of that fact in doctrines like the general duty of good
faith and the tort of promissory fraud. Although we should teach students
to sometimes take the perspective of Holmes’s bad man, we should not teach the
to act like him.
Two final observations. First, to put all of our cards on
the table, under our proposed standard one of us has engaged in the presumptive
wrong. In the empirical work that went into his Fair
Driving article, Ayres trained testers to solicit offer from dozens of
Chicagoland car dealerships. These testers intended not to accept any
such offers. Had the testers disclosed their true intention, the
dealerships would have likely refused to hondle. In Ayres’s defense, one
might argue that the presumption of wrong-doing is overcome by the purpose of
the study. Deceitful (which also might be characterized aka fraudulent)
testing is countenanced in limited contexts both by
human subjects committees and by the
law as a means of testing for race and gender discrimination. That
said, reasonable people can differ, on whether the (marginal) benefits of such
testing exceeded their cost, and whether Ayres did enough to mitigate those
costs that came from defrauding sellers’ of their time.
Second, we wonder about the final outcome here. After
exchanging dozens of emails with Jim, Professor Subotnik finally endeavored to
end the exchange:
Professor
Subotnik: I cannot continue this colloquy.
My time is valuable, and I have to get back to work. All I can say is that I am
sorry. I will not do it again. * * * My apology is sincere, I can assure you.
Jim: Let’s test that and try to take advantage of
another teaching moment. I have been organizing our email exchange for the law
review and have even spoken to the Managing Editor and EIC. We want your OK to
publish it. * * *
Professor
Subotnik: You want me to indulge you now,
after all the guff you have given me? I can write my own article on the
subject.
Jim: But you won’t. * *
*
The very publication of the exchange seems to an attempt at
self-vindication. Professor Subotnik, like Alexander Hamilton in publishing a
response regarding his interactions
with Maria Reynolds, must not have anything to hide. But even in the
act of publication, Jim may come out the better. Jim expressly sought
Professor Subotnik’s permission before publishing his copyrighted emails.
It is not clear, however, that Professor Subotnik obtained Jim’s permission
before publishing Jim’s emails. Although Professor Subotnik is free
publish his own emails, or write his own article on the subject, it less
obvious that he is free to copy and publish Jim’s email in their entirety.
Nor does Jim’s implicit willingness to have them published in his own journal
signal his willingness to have them published in another law school’s
journal. Whereas publication of the exchange metaphorically gives
Professor Subotnik the last word, it might signal another failure of legal
issue-spotting. Owning a copy of Jim’s email does not, without more, give
Professor a copy right.
Posted 8:00 AM by Ian Ayres [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |