The Virtuous Cycle of Agreement

Collective choice mechanisms are used by groups to reach decisions in the presence of diverging preferences. But can the employed mechanism affect the degree of post-decision actual agreement (i.e. preference homogeneity) within a group? And if so, which are the features of the choice mechanisms that matter? Since it is difficult to address these questions in natural settings, we employ a theory-driven experiment where, after the group collectively decides on an issue, individual preferences can be properly elicited. We find that decision mechanisms that promote consensual behaviour generate substantially higher levels of post-decision actual agreement compared to outcome-wise identical procedures that incentivize subjects to exaggerate their differences.

A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features

In a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.

Part II Related Doctrines, 17 Rectification and Correcting Mistakes through Construction

This chapter concerns the equitable remedy of rectification of documents. This remedy is one which rewrites or amends documents where there is a mismatch between the parties' actual agreement and the instrument which purports to record it. The ultimate rationale of this equitable supplement to the common law is the strongly objective approach which the law takes to the formation of contracts, and the interpretation of agreements which are reduced to writing. The primacy which English law gives to the documentary contract, coupled with the strongly objective interpretative principle, are celebrated as one of the great strengths of English contract and commercial law, promoting the virtues of certainty and predictability. Accordingly, rectification of documents to accord with the parties' mistaken belief that the written word corresponds to their actual agreement acts as a subjective qualification or ‘safety valve’ to the objective principle to meet the justice of such cases.

Actual Agreement Contractualism

In this paper, I defend a metaethical position described as ‘actual agreement contractualism’: the view that norms arise from actual attempts to arrive at legitimate terms for social cooperation among all those affected. I distinguish the actual agreement approach from hypothetical approaches to contractualism, and defend the former against objections from Thomas Scanlon, in particular. The attractiveness of a focus on actual agreements, I argue, is seen in the way it resolves problems internal to the hypothetical approach as well as in its implications for the purpose of moral theory and for the obligation to justify our actions to others.

Patients’ perceptions of caregivers’ preference for comfort care at the EOL: Impact on DNR completion.

9521 Background: Research has shown that informal caregivers provide substantial psychosocial and material support to advanced cancer patients. Few studies have examined how family caregivers influence patients’ advance care planning. Here we test whether patients’ perceptions of their caregivers’ preference for comfort (vs. life-extending) end-of-life (EOL) care is associated with DNR order completion. We also evaluated whether caregivers’ actual agreement with patients on preference for comfort EOL care was associated with their rates of DNR order completion. Methods: Coping with Cancer II is an NCI –funded, multi-site, prospective cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their informal family caregivers. Patients are interviewed after receiving restaging scan results and asked if they would prefer a plan of EOL care focused on life-extension or one focused on relieving pain. Patients are also asked what type of EOL care they think their family caregivers would prefer for them and whether or not a DNR order has been completed for them. Caregivers are interviewed separately after patients receive restaging scan results and asked what type of EOL care they would want for the patient. Results: Based on patient data alone (N=72), patients who preferred comfort care at the EOL and who believe that their family caregiver agrees with them on this were significantly more likely than others to report DNR order completion (OR=3.67, p=0.013). Based on data from both patients and caregivers, patients’ perception of agreement with their caregivers on desire for comfort EOL care was more strongly associated with patients’ reports of DNR completion (rs=0.51, p=0.004) than was actual agreement with their caregivers on desire for comfort EOL care (rs=0.36, p=0.045). Conclusions: Patients who prefer comfort care to life-extending care at the EOL, and who think that their caregivers also want them to pursue comfort care, are more likely to have a DNR order completed. Interestingly, patients’ perception of this agreement had a stronger influence on DNR completion than the caregivers’ actual agreement with patients’ preference for comfort EOL care. DNR completion is influenced by patients’ perceptions of family support.

The Corporation as Actual Agreement

In contrast to “social contract” theories of the corporation, a moral justification of the corporation as actual, not hypothetical, agreement is presented. Central to the justification is the idea of personal projects, as developed by Loren Lomasky. The key idea is the role that corporations can play in the construction and advancement of personal, value-creating projects. The concept of the corporation as actual agreement, as a type of “right of association” theory, is defended against influential criticism of such theories by Thomas Donaldson.

CAVEAT EMPTOR VERSUS KHIYAR AL-'AYB

It is an obligation in any commercial (sale-purchase) transaction thatprior to entering into an agreement, the seller is to allow the buyer toinspect the goods, in order to ensure that they are free from any unknowndefect. Such an obligation on the seller is known in common law ascaveat emptor.' The doctrine, in other words, gives the buyer a right todetermine whether the goods to be purchased are free from any defectbefore the actual agreement is completed, so as to protect him from anyfuture risk from a defective product. Thus, this doctrine implies that thebuyer, after such inspection or investigation of the fitness of such goods,will shoulder the responsibility of any risk on the goods after the conclusionof the said sale and purchase agreement. Jowitt's Dictionary ofEnglish Law explains that a buyer must be on the alert, for he has no rightto remain in ignorance of the fact that what he is buying belongs to someoneother than the vendor and that any buyer who fails to investigate thevendor's title does so at his own risk.However, caveat emptor does not imply any obligation on the seller topoint out a defect in the goods to be sold.3 He is, therefore, only obligedto allow the buyer or purchaser to investigate the goods himself andnothing more. The buyer, in h s case, can decide before any sale andpurchase agreement whether to carry out such an inspection on the goodsto be sold. The buyer is then at liberty whether to exercise this means ofprotection against any defective goods! Islamic law also provides sucha safeguard against any defective products or goods in a sale and purchaseagreement. The Islamic doctrine which allows such safeguard iscalled in Islamic commercial terminology khiyur al-'ayh. Thus, underIslamic commercial law, the seller, in a sale and purchase agreement, is ...