ABSTRACT In 1720, following the crash in South Sea stock, some doubted the legal and ethical enforceability of contracts concluded on the secondary market for the purchase of future South Sea stock. This article examines the argument of David Dalrymple who drew upon civil law, natural law and the notion of a just price to advocate for the annulment of these so called ‘time bargains’. It demonstrates why Dalrymple's just price argument held a rhetorical relevance, as an ethical argument, even if the effectiveness of such a plea in both Scottish and English courts, during the early eighteenth century, is doubtful. Additionally, in setting out the context of his pamphlet and the wider debate, this article also draws attention to the emergence of a new ethical rhetoric of commerce and contracting, which argued against Dalrymple, and for the enforcement of these contracts. Lastly, this article contends that a wider conception of what constitutes the legal context of the South Sea crisis is needed, through which a deeper understanding can be gained of what role the law played in resolving the crisis and how political and ethical attitudes shaped the use of law, specifically contract law.

中文翻译：

---

不平等、公正的价格和糟糕的讨价还价：1720 年南海崩溃后的收缩态度

摘要 1720 年，在南海股票暴跌之后，一些人怀疑在二级市场上签订的购买未来南海股票的合同在法律和道德上的可执行性。本文考察了大卫·达尔林普尔 (David Dalrymple) 的论点，他利用民法、自然法和公平价格的概念来主张废除这些所谓的“时间交易”。它证明了为什么 Dalrymple 的公正价格论点在修辞上具有相关性，作为一种道德论点，即使在 18 世纪早期，这种辩护在苏格兰和英国法院的有效性都值得怀疑。此外，在阐述他的小册子的背景和更广泛的辩论时，本文还提请注意一种新的商业和承包道德修辞的出现，该修辞反对 Dalrymple，以及执行这些合同。最后，本文认为需要对南海危机的法律背景构成更广泛的概念，通过它可以更深入地了解法律在解决危机中发挥的作用以及政治和道德态度如何影响使用法，特别是合同法。