Understanding Fairness in Contractual Agreements: A Rawlsian Perspective

Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a two-fold definition for the word “contract”. A contract is “a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties, especially one legally enforceable” (Merriam-Webster). It is also a business agreement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price” (Merriam-Webster). John Rawls argues that “an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. To be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality. It is unfair if one of the contracting parties is able to take advantage of the other party because they are stronger, richer, better informed, or simply more powerful” (Sandel 30). The purpose of this essay is to affirm Rawls’ argument because I do agree that entrance into a contract does not mean that the contract is just, especially if one party is perceived to have an advantage over the terms of the contract. To do so, I will use a scenario to prove that if an agreement was made voluntarily, this is not enough to ensure that the terms agreed to are fair. I will also provide possible counterarguments for oppositions that provide criticism on Rawls’ grounds.

The scenario is a case presented by Michael Sandel in his book “Justice:

Subject matters surrounding a contract are not considered to be proper if “it is contrary to public policy (such as an agreement to commit a tort or a crime or an agreement in restraint of trade), immoral (the only use of the subject matter is to violate the law), or if it violates a statute (such as a gambling contract or a usurious contract.) “(Unit 6- Contracts, 1). This aspect of the contract was not fulfilled according to the scenario. The elderly woman and the contractor entered into the contract legally however prior to establishing the contract, he knew that he was going to overcharge the elderly woman, proceeding to agree to commit a tort, therefore violating the subject matter of the