Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
[Paragraph 1]
For decades, orthodox contract jurisprudence has maintained that the doctrine of consideration functions primarily to distinguish enforceable commercial bargains from gratuitous, non-binding promises. Under this classical framework, courts presume that rational economic actors require reciprocal value exchange before entering legal obligations, thereby ensuring commercial predictability and shielding parties from involuntary liability.
[Paragraph 2]
However, recent empirical analyses of modern commercial agreements reveal significant friction between classical doctrine and business realities. In relational contracting—where ongoing cooperation supersedes formal terms—parties frequently modify existing agreements without reciprocal consideration to accommodate unforeseen market fluctuations. Under the classical doctrine, these good-faith modifications are rendered legally unenforceable, creating uncertainty and encouraging opportunistic breach.
[Paragraph 3]
To resolve this tension, contemporary legal theorists have advanced the 'reliance-cooperation' model. This framework posits that contractual enforceability should hinge not on rigid formal reciprocity, but rather on whether a promise was made in the context of an established collaborative relationship and reasonably induced reliance by the promisee. By recognizing informal modifications, this model aligns legal enforcement with actual commercial norms.
[Paragraph 4]
Although the reliance-cooperation model resolves the rigidity of orthodox doctrine, it introduces new challenges. Applying a standard based on reasonable reliance inevitably increases judicial discretion, potentially leading to disparate outcomes across jurisdictions. Consequently, while the framework offers greater fairness in ongoing commercial partnerships, legal scholars continue to debate how courts can maintain predictability without reverting to formalist constraints.
Based on the passage above, match each paragraph to its primary rhetorical function within the author's overall argument.
- Paragraph 1Establishes a conventional legal doctrine and explains its foundational rationale.
- Paragraph 2Presents empirical shortcomings and practical conflicts arising from the traditional doctrine.
- Paragraph 3Introduces an alternative theoretical model designed to resolve the identified shortcomings.
- Paragraph 4Evaluates the potential complications and unresolved trade-offs of adopting the proposed model.