Interpretation of Consent Decrees and Microsoft v. United States I: Making Law in the Shadow of Negotiation

Authors

  • Lloyd C. Anderson

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2001.2

Abstract

 

People negotiate agreements "in the shadow of the law," whether in the private ordering of affairs such as drafting contracts or in the public forum of settling lawsuits.[1] A reverse phenomenon, however, has gone largely unnoticed: judges occasionally declare law in the shadow of negotiated settlements. In interpreting the terms of a consent decree[2] when the parties themselves cannot agree on what obligations such terms impose, the judge may determine that both the words and the parties' own intentions are so ambiguous that the words must be interpreted in light of the substantive law that gave rise to the plaintiffs' claim. This writer has previously contended that the meaning of an ambiguous term should be determined, in part, "by reference to the constitutional or statutory rights sought to be vindicated in the litigation." Even if the law is somewhat uncertain, part of the judge's interpretive effort should be to determine which interpretation "will best serve the policies of the relevant law."[3] It appears that the federal courts, at least, have adopted this position.[4]

Author Biography

Lloyd C. Anderson

C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law

The University of Akron

Downloads

Published

2001-04-12

How to Cite

Anderson, L. C. (2001). Interpretation of Consent Decrees and Microsoft v. United States I: Making Law in the Shadow of Negotiation. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 1. https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2001.2