An Essay on Social Contract Theory

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. Rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to legal systems, social convention, or ethical theory.

Rights are a legal entitlement that people are either born with or obtain at a certain age and it requires certain

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

“It is not wisdom, but authority that makes a law.” This is a quote by sixteenth-century, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes who adhered to a “might makes right” aspect of the modern Social Contract Theory. In this “Social Contract Theory, Hobbes, as well as other political philosophers such as John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are to be known as Contractarians. Contractarianism is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The political theory of authority claims that legitimate authority of government must derive from the consent of the governed, where the form and content of this consent derives from the idea of contract or mutual agreement.” With this in mind, Contractarians are people who uphold the very sanctity of written, and or verbal agreements based on compromise, and moral stability via a governing body. Alas, what the main issue is, is what are the differences between the Social Contract Theories that these three philosophers espouse, and how do they differ? Furthermore, which philosopher’s theory would I use in a hypothetical situation in which I would be on the committee to develop my countries constitution for, and why would I reject the other two philosophers’ ideas?

Social Contract means the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. A word that relates to Social Contract is Natural Rights. I think this because Natural Rights are rights that we are born with and a Social Contract are rights that we choose to have that will help us be equal in power. The Social Contract is just like Natural Rights because they both help protect me from bad rulers and powerful people. A word that relates to Social Contract is freedom. I think this because the Social Contract was a way to describe the process of people having a say in things and freedom lets you say what you want without anyone telling you that you can't. Also the social contract you can have the rights you want and just like freedom you can do what you want but still it being

Enforceable contract Peter v. Don. Peter will have an enforceable contract with Don if he can show that all the required elements of a contract are present. If there is a contract between the two then it will be governed by the common law requirements of an enforceable contract instead of the Uniformed Commercial Code, which would be used if their agreement had involved the sale of goods. In order for a contract to be formed between Peter and Don the two must react mutual consent Mutual consent can generally be formed through the form of an (A) offer and (B) acceptance. An additional requirement for both parties to show (C) consideration is also

Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full

have the right to something, while negative rights means having the right to not be harmed

Bernie a resident of Richmond, Virginia decides to sale his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,000.00 and places an ad in his local newspaper on February 1st. After several weeks without any inquiries, Vivian contacts Bernie on March 1st stating she will pay him $12,000.00 for the car. Bernie arranges to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the deal. Vivian comes to Bernie’s house on March 10th and says she will give Bernie $12,500.00 for the car; but she needs three additional weeks to come up with the money. Bernie agrees but only if Vivian puts down a deposit. Vivian agrees and Bernie drafts an agreement stated the sale will must take place no later than March 31st. Vivian reads and signs the agreement and

a right is an entitlement to act or to have others act in a certain way.

"The current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people." There is nothing closer to the truth than this statement. While some may argue that the government is following the guidelines of a social contract, many aspects of the government have outgrown their britches and taken over.

The social contract theory, approximately as ancient as the philosophy, is an agreement among people through which maintained society in which they live ordered. Actually social contract theory is precisely associated with modern politics. In addition, it is given its first complete exhibition and defense with Thomas Hobbes. After Thomas Hobbes, J.J Rousseau is one of the most known proponents of this significant effective social contract theory. Throughout the history this theory has been one of the most dominant theories or ideas within political theory. According to the Leviathan which is written by Hobbes and to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right which is written by Rousseau , social contract theory differentiated in

Social contract denotes that a government or sovereign body exists only to serve the will of the people because the people are the source of political power that is enjoyed by the entity. The people can choose to give or withdraw the power. Not all philosophers agree that the social contract creates rights and obligations; on the contrary, some believe that the social contract imposes restrictions that restrict a person’s natural rights. Individuals who live within the society gain protection by the government from others who may pursue to cause them injury, in exchange, the citizens, must relinquish individual liberties like the capability to commit wrongdoings without being reprimanded, and they should contribute to making society

The social contract, rather the ideology surrounding the social contract which can be traced back to the imprisonment of Socrates, argues that Socrates refused to escape due to his feeling that it would undermine the values he felt obligated to of Athens. This may be difficult to comprehend at first. A teacher accepting imprisonment for trying shape the minds of the youth with logic seems unheard of. Yet Socrates accepted his ill fate arguing the point that by his choosing to live in Athens, he was compelled to live by its laws. Dissecting his defiance to escape wrongful imprisonment, we can find the basis of the social contract which is that the people give up their physical freedoms and agree to abide by centralized laws and rules via mutual consent in order to maintain a civil and peaceful society.