In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Shylock and Antonio form a contract in which the terms state that Antonio will lose a 'pound of his flesh' if he does not pay back money borrowed for Bassanio within 3 months. When he defaults, Shylock, eager for revenge, demands the pound of flesh. In court he demonstrates a merciless interpretation of contract law regardless of the brutal consequences.

In contrast, Portia argues that while Shylock can have what his contract allows, a pound of flesh exactly, the contract makes no mention of blood, and so does not entitle him to shed any of Antonio's blood. He may, therefore, only remove the flesh if no blood can be spilt —an obvious impossibility.

How would courts today approach Shylock's contract with Antonio?

Identify and critically evaluate the rationale for why the courts apply these principles.