《經濟學與法律的對話》課件 28 17 Tort_第1頁
《經濟學與法律的對話》課件 28 17 Tort_第2頁
《經濟學與法律的對話》課件 28 17 Tort_第3頁
《經濟學與法律的對話》課件 28 17 Tort_第4頁
《經濟學與法律的對話》課件 28 17 Tort_第5頁
已閱讀5頁,還剩21頁未讀 繼續免費閱讀

下載本文檔

版權說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內容提供方,若內容存在侵權,請進行舉報或認領

文檔簡介

LongTermContracts:FamilyLawWhyHaveLong-termContracts?Whynothandleeverythingasaspotmarket?Insomerelationships,partnersacquirerelationshipspecificskillsConvertingacompetitivemarkettoabilateralmonopolyThecasefortraditionalmarriageEliminatingtheoptionofthreateningtoleavereducessomebargainingcostsSocialcustomsonthedivisionofresponsibilitiesreducesothersAttheriskofbeingstuckwithawrongchoiceorawrongdivisionAndyoucannotenforcecontracttermsthatarenotobservableChangesOverthePastCentury+DivorceUsedtobelegallydifficultanduncommonIsnoweasyandcommonMostcoupleshadasexualdivisionoflaborHusbandworkedoutsidethehomeforincomeWiferanthehouseholdMostadultswerepartofahusband-wifecouple,nowabouthalfAlmostallchildrenwereborninwedlock1940U.S.Illegitimacyrateabout4%1999about33%Whydidthesechangeshappen?HousewifeceasedtobeafulltimejobbecauseInfantmortalityratesdroppedAlotofhouseholdproductionmovedoutofthehouseSincewomenwerelessspecializedtobeingthewifeofaparticularmanThecostsofendingamarriage,whilestillsubstantial,weresmallerSolessincentivetomakeandkeeplongtermcontractsConsequencesofEasyDivorceConsideralongtermcontractinwhichAperformsearly,BlateIfthecontractisnotenforceableAperformsandBbreaches.Opportunisticbreach,notefficientbreachInatraditionalmarriage,thewifeperformsearly,thehusbandlateProducingandrearingchildrenisthehardpartofthewife’sjobThehusband’sincomeusuallyrisesovertimeSowitheasydivorce,somehusbandsbreachopportunisticallyOncepeopleadjust,howwouldwomenrationallyrespond?Specializelessinbeingawife,moreinmarketskillsPostponeandspreadoutchildbearingBelesslikelytomarryatallOut-of-WedlockBirths:PossibleExplanationsWelfareforsinglemothersmadesinglemotherhoodmoreviableIncreasingacceptabilityofnon-marriageequivalentsAsurplusofwomenonthemarriagemarketrelativetothepastBecausewomennowhardlyeverdieinchildbirthIn1900,~1%ofbirthsresultedindeathforthemother,andwomenhadalotofchildrenInaricherworld,morewomenwhodidn’twantahusbandcoulddowithoutoneAkerlof-YellinExplanationInaworldwithoutabortionorcontraception,sexandbabiesarejointproductsSomostwomeninsistedonmarriageorengagementasaconditionofsexAndcouldgetthatdealbecausemostmenhadnogoodalternativesourceofsexWithreliablecontraceptionandlegalabortion,thelinkisbrokenWomenwhodon’twantbabiesbutwantsexcanofferitwithouttheconditionAndtheircompetitionmeanssomewomenwhowantbothcan’tgetitSoenduphavingbabiesandrearingthemwithoutamantohelpThisassumesthat,ontraditionalterms,menarerelativelymoreinterestedinmarriageforsex,womeninmarriageforbabiesThisistheoppositeofthepredictedeffectofthechangeOut-of-wedlockchildrenwereassumedtobeunwantedchildren:AccidentsCausePeopleWithreliablecontraceptionandabortionavailabletherewouldn’tbeanyApparentlytheyweren’tunwantedExplainingSexLawAgainstadultery:ContractenforcementEspeciallyagainstfemaleadultery—thedoublestandardMendon’tgetpregnant,andmenwanttoreartheirownchildrenMaleadulterycandivertresourcesawayfromthewifeForboth,alinkbetweensexualexclusivenessandemotionalcommitmentAgainstfornicationAkerlof-Yellinargument:Womenwhowanttogetmarrieddon’twantcompetitionIfmarriageproducesbetterchildren,andfornicationunderminesmarriageThat’sanargumentfordiscouragingfornicationRingsandPromises:MargaretBrinigTraditionalpatternincludedsexbeforemarriagebutwithcommitmentThatraisestheriskofseduceandabandonInAnglo-Americanlaw,breachofpromisewasactionableIneffectdamagesforlossofvirginity,whichwasvaluableonthemarriagemarketWhy?Startingabout1935,U.S.courtsincreasinglyabandonedtheactionWhichiswhywomenstartedrequiringvaluableengagementringsThinkofitasaperformancebond–ifhejiltshershekeepstheringSeductionLaw:OldandOlderFatherswanttocontrolwhotheirdaughters’marryInAnglo-Americancommonlaw,onewayofdoingitWasanactionagainstaseducerbythefatherOnthegroundsthathewasdeprivedoftheservicesofaservantMyexplanation:“Seduction”oftenmeantevasionofparentalcontrolIfBillgetsmepregnantmyfatherwillhavetoletusgetmarriedSothefatherwantsalegalactionhecancontrol,notonehisdaughtercancontrolThesameissueshowsupintraditionalJewishlawUnderreligiouslaw,awomanwasadultandcouldchooseherhusbandat12?CommunalauthoritiestriedtofindwaysofaddingadditionalrequirementsGettingaroundthereligiouslawrulesinvariouswaysPrettyclearlyforthesamereasonTheAdoptionMarketIt’sanoddmarket–supplyanddemandareroutinelyoutofsynchAsonewouldexpectinamarketwithpricecontrolAdoptionagenciesclaimtomakethechoiceinthebaby’sinterestWhataretheirincentives,comparedtothoseofnaturalandadoptiveparents?Dotheiractualrequirementssupportthatclaim?TheCommodificationArgumentFromMargaretRadin,StanfordLawItiswrongtotreatthingsascommoditiesthatshouldn’tbeSuchasbabies(paymentforadoption)orsex(prostitution)SoperhapsthetransactionsshouldbeillegalThislooksliketheoppositeofthelogicreflagburningGovernmentscanmakelotsoflawsaboutburningthingsunderminimalscrutinyButburningaflagisbothafireandamessageAndthegovernmentcan’tpunishmessagesRadinisarguingforpunishingthingsbecausetheyaremessagesAreBabiesaGoodThing?AlotofpeoplearguetherearetoomanypeopleFromtheeconomist’sstandpoint,thisisaclaimaboutexternalitiesWhenIproduceandrearachild,doIimposenetcostsonothers?TrytolistthemThechildneedsfood,clothing,shelter—morepeoplemeanslessforeachThat’snotacostexternaltothefamilyWhattheyuse,theyortheirparentshavetobuyThechildwillgotopublicschool,atsomecosttothetaxpayersButhewillthengrowupandpaytaxestothepublicschoolsRoughlythetwoeffectscancelThechildmayproducepollution,commitcrimes,goonwelfare–negativeHemayinventthecureforcancer,writeagreatnovel,positiveMorepeoplemeanmorepeopletosharetheburdenoftaxesNewReproductiveTechnologyMultipleparentsThechildwithfiveparents–arealCaliforniacaseSterilehusband,doublyinfertilewife,aproblemSolution:spermdonor,eggdonor,hostmotherChildisborn,couplegetdivorcedWhohasrightsandresponsibilitieswithregardtothebaby?LordMansfield’srulemaynotbetherightanswer"Mymotherwasatesttube,myfatherwasaknife”IfwecandocutandpastegeneticengineeringWhoarethelegalparentsandWhoownsyourgenes?LibertarianeugenicsSupposeeachcouplecouldchoose,amongthechildrentheycouldproduceTheonestheydidproduceSeparatelyselectingonspermandeggGood?Bad?TortLawAnyquestionsonthechapter?ATortisaWrongWhyisanactwrongful?Becauseitimposescostsonothers.ButCompetitionisnotatortBecausetheexternalityispecuniaryNonetcostLotsofminorthingsimposenetcostsbutarenottortsBecausesomeexternalitiesarenotworthlitigatingSuchasmytasteinclothingForsomeissuesapropertyruleisbetterthanaliabilityruleWhichisanargumentforusingcriminallawinsteadThesameactcanbebothacrimeandatortArethereactsthatarecrimesbutnottorts?WewillgetbacktothecrimevstortissueinafewweeksCausationWhatdoes“AcausedB”mean?CoincidentalcausationMystoppingyoutochatisa“butfor”causeofyourbeingunderthefallingsafeButitdoesnotincreasetheprobabilityexante,sopunishingitProvidesonlyanincentivenottochatwithpeopleUnlesswealsorewardyouwhenthesafefallstensecondsearlierEasiertodoneitherInlegallanguage,thisistheissueofforseeabilityRedundantcausationTwolivehuntersandoneverydeadone.Whoisliable?TheaveragecostimposedbyeachofthetwohuntersishalfalifeButthemarginalcostimposedbyeachiszeroReversecaseBillcarelesslypointedanunloadedgunatJohnandpulledthetriggerUnfortunately,MaryhadcarelesslyloadeditAveragedamagebyeachofthemhalfalifeper,marginaldamagebyeachonelifeThisisthelegalversionoftheDiamond-WaterpuzzleDiamondsaremuchmorevaluablethanwater$3000/carat=~$6,000,000/gallonWatercostsconsiderablylessthanthatWaterismuchmorevaluablethandiamondsIftherewerenodiamondsintheworldEngagementringswouldhaverubies,sapphiresandemeraldsinsteadWhichmightbeanimprovementAndgrindingwheelswouldbecarborundum,whichwearsoutfasterWithoutwaterwealldieSolution:ThedifferencebetweenaveragevalueandmarginalvalueAllofthewaterisworthmuchmorethanallofthediamondsButsincewehavealotofwater,onemoredropisworthverylittleOnemorediamondisworthquitealotInthesecases,wearelookingatthecostofonemoreactionProbabilisticCausationYoumayhavecauseddamageof$10,000Underthe“preponderanceoftheevidence”ruleIfp<.5youowenothingIfp>.5youowe$10,000Whydon’twemakeitdamage=p($1000)?AjuryhasahardenoughtimedecidingonguiltorinnocenceAndtheamountofthedamageNowyouwantthemtoagreeonwhetherpis.6or.7AccountingfollowsthesamerulePossiblyforthesamereasonEachofthemneedsasimpledecisionruleWhatistheEfficientLevelofTrafficAccidents?Zero?WeknowhowtogetthatBanalldrivingButthecureisworsethanthediseaseTakeprecautionsifandonlyifThebenefitfromtheprecautionIsgreaterthanitscostHowdowegetthatresult?ArrangethatsomeonewhotakesaprecautiongetsthebenefitOrsomeonewhofailstotakeitpaysthecostTwowaysofsayingthesamethingAvoidingacostisabenefitEfficientRulesforaUnicausalAccidentStrictliabilityisthestraightforwardPigouviananswerNegligence,asinterpretedbyeconomists,givestherightanswertooYouareliableifyoufailedtotakeallcostjustifiedprecautionsSoitisinyourinteresttodosoWhichistheefficientresultTheHandruleThatassumesthecourtknowsWhatprecautionsyoutookAndwhatprecautionsyoushouldhavetakenSoitisapartlyregulatorysolutionStrictliabilityonlyrequiresyoutoknow—leveragesyourprivateinformationActivitylevelisshorthandforunobservableprecautionsThecourtdoesnotknowhowmuchtakingthattripwasworthtoyouSocannottellifitwasworthtakingButotherprecautionsmaybeunobservabletooDualCausation:CoaseianaccidentsStrictliabilityoneitherpartyGivesthatpartyafullincentiveTheotherpartynone,sinceheisbeingfullycompensatedforthecosttohimHowaboutmakingbothpartiesfullyliable?Eachofuspaysafineequaltotheotherdriver’scostoftheaccidentNowanythingIcandothatreducestheprobabilitybyonepercentagepointIsworthdoingifitcostsmorethandamage/100,whichistherightruleBothdriverscausedtheaccident–theemptygunstoryWhatiswrongwiththissolution?Whoreportstheaccident?Whataboutnegligenceliability?Mysimplecaseiscarsandtanks.Thetankisliableifthedriverwasnegligent–fullincentiveIfthetankisnotliable,thecardriverbearsthefullexpenseAndthetankwon’tbeliable,becauseitisnotinitsinteresttobenegligentSobothofthemtaketheoptimalprecautionsHalftheproblemissolvedbyPigou,halfbyregulationButitonlyworksforobservableprecautionsInamorerealisticcasethancarsandtanks…Howdowedecidewhichpartyisliableifnegligent?Thetallerdriver?ThinkofitascompensationfortheevileffectsofheightismButIdon’tknowhowtallthedriverIamabouttorunintoisSotheargumentworkspoorlyforautocollisions,betterforSituationswherethereissomeconsistentdifferencebetweenthetwopartiesSuchthatwecanhavearulespecifyingwhichisliableifnegligentDrivervspedestrian,forexampleThesamelogicworksforcontributorynegligenceIpayforyourdamageunlessyouwerenegligentSoyouwon’tbe,soIwill,soIwilltaketheoptimalprecautionsTable14.1shouldmakesensetoyouSupposewedon’thaveacourtthatcanaccuratelyjudgenegligenceTheleastbadrulemaybetosplitthedamageAlongthelinesoftheargumentforcoinsuranceIfIbearhalfthecost,itstillpaysmetotaketheprecautionswithahighpayoffAndifyoubeartheotherhalf,itpaysyouto.DamagesMeasuringnon-pecuniarydamages:MaimonidesHowmuchdoestheinjuryreduceyourvalue?Ifyouweresoldasaslave,howmuchwoulditreduceyourprice?Whatmightbewrongwiththisanswer?Howmuchdidthepainandsufferingcostyou?IfyouwerecondemnedtohaveyourhandcutoffWhatwouldyoupaytohaveitdoneunderdrugs?Punitivedamages:TheexceptiontotheusualruleDamagesgreaterthanrequiredtomakethevictimwholeHucklevsMoney:DamagesagainsttheSecretaryofStateThecasethatgaveustheFourthAmendmentCourtesyofJohnWilkesDamagesforshootingbirdsonsomeoneelse’spropertyArguablydonebecausethetortfeasorwantednotbirdsButtohumiliatethepropertyownerSixTheoriesofPunitiveDamagesNosuchthing,justordinarydamagesforinjuriesthatarehardtoseeTheyservetoexpressmoraloutrageTheyfunctionasaprobabilitymultiplier(LandesandPosner)ForatortwhichwilloftengounpunishedScaleupthepunishmenttogetitonaverageequaltodamagedoneIfdamagesarehardtomeasurebutthetortisalmostalwaysinefficient,setdamagesatahighestimateofharmdone(LandesandPosner)BecausetheoptimalpunishmentisnotreallyequaltodamagedoneCatchingandpunishingpeopleiscostlySodeteralloffensesthatdonetdamageisonlyafirstapproximationtotherightruleDetailsnextweekTodeterstrategictortsMythreattoharmyoustopsyoufromdoingthingsIdon’tlikeWhichisacosttoyounotobservedasdamagesButthisonlyworksifthevictimisnotfullycompensatedConsider

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯系上傳者。文件的所有權益歸上傳用戶所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網頁內容里面會有圖紙預覽,若沒有圖紙預覽就沒有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經權益所有人同意不得將文件中的內容挪作商業或盈利用途。
  • 5. 人人文庫網僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內容的表現方式做保護處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內容負責。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權或不適當內容,請與我們聯系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

評論

0/150

提交評論