Which theory supports less consumer law based on the freedom of contract?

The Neoclassical Economic Theory supports the idea of less regulation in consumer law, emphasizing the importance of the freedom of contract. This theory is grounded in the belief that individuals are rational actors who make informed decisions in their best interest. From this perspective, consumers are seen as having the capacity to understand and negotiate the terms of contracts, which leads to efficient market outcomes.

In this context, government intervention or regulations that constrain freedom of contract are viewed as unnecessary and potentially harmful, as they might disrupt the natural functioning of the market. Proponents of Neoclassical Economic Theory argue that when consumers have the freedom to negotiate and enter into contracts, they are more likely to enter into mutually beneficial agreements without external interference.

In contrast, the other options focus on concepts that advocate for a more protective approach to consumer law. Behavioral economics, for instance, highlights how cognitive biases can lead to poor decision-making, suggesting that consumers may not always act rationally. Paternalism involves intervening in consumer choices for their own good, often suggesting that consumers need protection from making harmful decisions. Unequal bargaining power points to situations where one party has significantly more power than the other in negotiations, which can lead to exploitative practices. These perspectives underscore the importance of consumer