The standard paradigm of contracting assumes that parties will revise subsequent contracts if a court interpretation of a clause does not reflect their intent. This assumption, however, often does not match behavior—particularly, in boilerplate contracts. We examine the aftermath of an (in)famous 2016 case, Wilmington Savings Fund v. Cash America, to unpack possible reasons for this mismatch between theory and practice. We find evidence of a phenomenon in contracts that involves sophisticated parties who are nevertheless not represented by their own lawyers, lack full awareness of the fine print of the contractual terms, and, having devoted little attention to them, may be eclectic as to their meaning when they enter into these contracts. In these contracts, which we call contracts of inattention, a gap between lawyers’ understanding of a provision and the understanding of market participants is prone to emerge. The potential for such gaps has implications for how courts should interpret contracts of inattention and for how market participants will react to court rulings.

中文翻译：

---

疏忽合同

合同的标准范式假定，如果法院对条款的解释没有反映他们的意图，当事人将修改后续合同。然而，这种假设通常与行为不匹配——尤其是在样板合同中。我们研究了一个（不）著名的 2016 年案件的后果，威尔明顿储蓄基金诉美国现金, 解开理论与实践不匹配的可能原因。我们在合同中发现了一种现象的证据，这种现象涉及经验丰富的当事人，但他们没有自己的律师代表，对合同条款的细则缺乏充分认识，而且很少关注这些条款，可能对其含义不拘一格当他们签订这些合同时。在这些我们称之为疏忽合同的合同中，很容易出现律师对条款的理解与市场参与者的理解之间的差距。这种差距的可能性对于法院应如何解释疏忽合同以及市场参与者将如何对法院裁决作出反应都有影响。