The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Finance published a short summary of my article Must Salmon Love Meinhard? Agape and Partnership Fiduciary Duties, which concludes:
So must Salmon love Meinhard? As I show in the essay, despite Cardozo’s inspiring rhetoric, the law clearly has said “no.” Agape is simultaneously too indeterminate and too demanding a standard to be suitable for business relationships.
Should Salmon love Meinhard? In the essay, I argue that the answer is “yes” (and vice-vice versa). My analysis of Cardozo’s rhetoric and the intent behind it suggests that agape has great instrumental value. Partners who love one another can trust one another. In turn, partners who trust one another will expend considerable less time and effort—and thus incur much lower costs—monitoring one another.
Agape thus should not be the law, but the law should promote agape as best practice.
The full essay is available for download here.