Allard School of Law hosts twelfth edition of the North American Workshop on Private Law Theory

On November 7-8, 2025, the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia hosted the twelfth edition of the North American Workshop on Private Law Theory (NAWPLT). NAWPLT is an annual workshop that invites legal scholars based in North America to present and discuss works-in-progress. Each year, papers for NAWPLT are selected to reflect a diversity of perspectives and methodologies. 

This year’s papers focused on issues in tort law, contracts and equity. Allard Law Professors Samuel Beswick and Adam Hofri hosted the workshop, which was sponsored by UBC’s Centre for Business Law, the Canada Research Chair in Labour Law & Social Justice, the Nathan T. Nemetz Chair in Legal History, the Peter A. Allard School of Law Research Engagement Fund, and Green College.

The twelfth edition of NAWPLT took place over one-and-a-half days and was divided into six sessions. In the first session, which Prof. Zoë Sinel (Western Law) moderated, Prof. Courtney Cox (Fordham University) presented her paper titled “Deceit is not Deception.” In her paper, Cox argues that the core of the common law tort of fraud is manipulation, not deception as traditionally understood. She explains that grounding fraud in manipulation, where one person intentionally interferes with another person’s decision-making, makes better analytical sense of the elements of the tort. Prof. Lauren Scholz (Florida State University) commented on Cox’s paper.

In the second session, moderated by Prof. Felipe Jiménez (University of Southern California), Prof. Erik Encarnacion (University of Texas at Austin) presented his paper titled “The Continuity Thesis: Political, Not Metaphysical.” In his paper, Encarnacion argues that standard theories of how rights and duties subsist after wrongdoing has occurred rest on shaky assumptions. He argues that continuity theories face serious metaethical problems and cannot reliably explain why compensatory duties arise. Instead, he argues that duties to compensate should be understood as supporting the resilience of the injured party by helping them bounce back from a setback. Prof. Jean Thomas (Queen’s University) commented on the paper.

In the third session, Prof. Sadie Blanchard (University of Notre Dame) presented a paper titled “Contracting for Equity.” Prof. Jennifer Nadler (Osgoode Hall Law School) moderated the session. Blanchard’s paper considers why parties might prefer equitable adjudicatory terms to formalist adjudication in arbitration clauses. She explains that parties often structure their agreements with the expectation that a court of equity will enforce certain obligations in a flexible way that supports fairness between them. Blanchard shows that this view helps explain why equitable relief sometimes departs from strict legal rules. She further argues that seeing equity as part of the parties’ own planning sheds light on how courts can use equitable tools to support cooperation and fair dealing in contractual relationships. Prof. Adam Hofri (Allard Law) commented on Blanchard’s paper.

Prof. Greg Keating (University of Southern California) presented his paper titled “Tort is Basic Justice” in the fourth session, which was moderated by Prof. Sam Beswick (Allard Law). In his paper, Keating argues that tort law is fundamentally an institution of basic justice, not merely “private justice,” as it is concerned with establishing our security as members of civil society, which he calls the very groundwork of our existence. He argues that tort obligations specify the coercively enforceable responsibilities we owe one another not to impair essential interests, such as physical and psychological integrity, privacy, and economic expectancies. Keating concludes that because tort law is a crucial part of the basic structure of society, the principles that govern it must be constrained by the larger requirements of background justice. Prof. Sabine Tsuruda (University of Toronto) commented on Keating’s paper.

In the fifth session, moderated by Prof. Andrew Gold (University of California, Irvine), Prof. María Guadalupe Martínez Alles (University of Denver) presented her paper titled “The Significance of the Private Actor in Torts.” In her paper, Martínez Alles argues that existing accounts of tort law, including both structuralist and functionalist theories, systematically overlook the intrinsic significance of the tort victim. She critiques structuralist and functionalist theories for lacking a meaningful connection to the substance of the responses to wrongdoing and the broader social context. Instead, she argues for a substantive and contextual understanding of the tort victim, which recognizes their meaning-generative and knowledge-producing role through the articulation of tort law and the tort process. Prof. Amy Sepinwall (University of Pennsylvania) commented on the paper.

In the last session, Prof. Nico Cornell (University of Michigan) presented his paper titled “Anticipatory Breach and Anticipatory Complaint.”  Prof. Joanna Langille (Western Law) moderated the session. In his paper, Cornell addresses the theoretical confusion surrounding the contract doctrine of anticipatory breach, where a promisee can sue immediately when a promisor repudiates a contract, even if the time for performance has not yet arrived. He argues that this doctrine is perplexing because it seems to bring the moment of breach before the moment of performance. He rejects traditional explanations and proposes that anticipatory breach should be understood as an anticipatory complaint. Prof. Robert Stevens (University of Oxford) commented on Cornell’s paper.

The presenters benefited from lively and challenging comments from over 40 participating American and Canadian private law theorists.