A freely chosen contract can still create relations of domination between parties

Evidence

The striking feature of a contract, even a free contract—a contract that is not the product of coercion or manipulation, for example—is that it may give one party a power of domination over the other. The force of circumstance may drive a person into making a contract that exemplifies or approximates the slave contract that was roundly condemned in the commonwealth tradition (Locke 1965: 325). From a republican point of view, then, the free contract cannot serve the role of automatic legitimator—even prima facie legitimator—of what happens under the terms of the contract. The idea of free contract loses the authorizing capacity that it was given in the classical liberal tradition. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 745

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the law-merchant and extralegal contracting material on private contracts and their limits, plus the Milgrom reading on when voluntary exchange is genuinely fair. — connects to: Servitude persists even when the servant is well-treated and chooses freely — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the…, 188; Equalizing resources lets dominated parties defend themselves and end domination — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 341; Voluntary arbitration rests on party consent, selection, and negotiated rules — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1168
• DEFINE: Sharply contrasts the liberal ‘free contract legitimates everything’ doctrine against a republican reading that denies contracts authorizing force when entered under duress of circumstance.