IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i2p442-d1035590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Method to Resolve the Principal–Principal Conflict—A New Perspective Based on Contract Theory and Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Yuxun Zhou

    (School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Darling Heights, QLD 4350, Australia)

  • Mohammad Mafizur Rahman

    (School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Darling Heights, QLD 4350, Australia)

  • Rasheda Khanam

    (School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Darling Heights, QLD 4350, Australia)

  • Brad R. Taylor

    (School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Darling Heights, QLD 4350, Australia)

Abstract

Liquidated damages mechanisms have been analyzed from a legal perspective and applied to real-world contracts. Due to the lack of application of LDs to common agency theory, this research explores whether the liquidated damages mechanism can resolve principal–principal conflicts under common agency. We combine the moral hazard model of common agency with non-cooperative dynamic game theory to analyze the influence of the liquidated damages mechanism on the agent and principals under the condition of complete information and incomplete information. We find that liquidated damages are the key factors affecting the optimal contract between the principal and agent. Since the agent does not terminate the current contract, a principal–principal conflict arises when another principal wishes to enter into a new contract with the common agent. We find that the agent terminates the existing contract and signs a new one with another principal. The injured party requires liquidated damages from the breaching party. Therefore, they will negotiate the number of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages cause the bargaining game to generate a unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium and sequential equilibrium. We prove that only when liquidated damages belong to a specific interval does a mechanism generating the Pareto optimal solutions to solve the principal–principal conflicts under common agency exist. A common way to resolve this conflict is ensuring that the minority is subordinate to the majority. For the first time, we study how the liquidated damages mechanism solves multi-principal conflict. This is another perspective that can be used to solve the conflict. Therefore, our paper expands the method of resolving the conflict and extends the theory of common agency; we first show the delegation process. Our research can be applied to various situations and provide a rational decision-making basis for participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuxun Zhou & Mohammad Mafizur Rahman & Rasheda Khanam & Brad R. Taylor, 2023. "Alternative Method to Resolve the Principal–Principal Conflict—A New Perspective Based on Contract Theory and Negotiation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:442-:d:1035590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/2/442/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/2/442/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meng, Dawen & Tian, Guoqiang, 2013. "Multi-task incentive contract and performance measurement with multidimensional types," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 377-404.
    2. Jihong Lee, 2005. "Incomplete Information, Renegotiation, and Breach of Contract," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(5), pages 1-7.
    3. Myerson, Roger B. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1983. "Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-281, April.
    4. Dixit, Avinash & Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1997. "Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Government Policy Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(4), pages 752-769, August.
    5. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    6. Hwang, Ilwoo & Li, Fei, 2017. "Transparency of outside options in bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-147.
    7. Michael N. Young & Mike W. Peng & David Ahlstrom & Garry D. Bruton & Yi Jiang, 2008. "Corporate Governance in Emerging Economies: A Review of the Principal–Principal Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 196-220, January.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    9. Edlin, Aaron S & Reichelstein, Stefan, 1996. "Holdups, Standard Breach Remedies, and Optimal Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 478-501, June.
    10. Hart, Oliver D & Moore, John, 1988. "Incomplete Contracts and Renegotiation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 755-785, July.
    11. Chung, Tai-Yeong, 1992. "On the Social Optimality of Liquidated Damage Clauses: An Economic Analysis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 280-305, April.
    12. Steven Shavell, 1980. "Damage Measures for Breach of Contract," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 466-490, Autumn.
    13. Damian Ward & Igor Filatotchev, 2010. "Principal-principal-agency relationships and the role of external governance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 249-261.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lewis A. Kornhauser & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2012. "Contracts between Legal Persons [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    2. Edlin, Aaron S & Reichelstein, Stefan, 1996. "Holdups, Standard Breach Remedies, and Optimal Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 478-501, June.
    3. Surajeet Chakravarty & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2006. "Construction Contracts (or “How to Get the Right Building at the Right Price?”)," CESifo Working Paper Series 1714, CESifo.
    4. Göller, Daniel & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2014. "Breach remedies inducing hybrid investments," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 26-38.
    5. Brooks, Richard & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2009. "On and Off Contract Remedies," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 290, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    6. Alexander Stremitzer, 2012. "Standard Breach Remedies, Quality Thresholds, and Cooperative Investments," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 337-359.
    7. Alessandro De Chiara, 2018. "Courts' Decisions, Cooperative Investments, and Incomplete Contracts," CEU Working Papers 2018_5, Department of Economics, Central European University.
    8. Motta, Massimo & Fumagalli, Chiara & Rønde, Thomas, 2009. "Exclusive dealing: the interaction between foreclosure and investment promotion," CEPR Discussion Papers 7240, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Richard R.W. Brooks & Alexander Stremitzer, 2012. "On and Off Contract Remedies Inducing Cooperative Investments," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 488-516.
    10. Rebecca Stone & Alexander Stremitzer, 2020. "Promises, Reliance, and Psychological Lock-In," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 33-72.
    11. Göller, Daniel & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2009. "Breach Remedies Including Hybrid Investments," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 282, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    12. Schmitz, Patrick W, 2001. "The Hold-up Problem and Incomplete Contracts: A Survey of Recent Topics in Contract Theory," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Dieter Boes & Martin Kolmar, 2000. "Self-Correcting Mechanisms in Public Procurement: Why Award and Contract Should be Separated," CESifo Working Paper Series 302, CESifo.
    14. Seshimo, Hiroyuki, 2003. "Optimal tenant protection," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 59-92, January.
    15. Ilya Segal & Michael D.Whinston, 2012. "Property Rights [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    16. Tadashi Ito, 2007. "NAFTA and productivity convergence between Mexico and the US," IHEID Working Papers 26-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised 27 Nov 2007.
    17. Ronen Avraham & Zhiyong Liu, 2006. "Incomplete Contracts with Asymmetric Information: Exclusive Versus Optional Remedies," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(3), pages 523-561.
    18. Bester, Helmut, 2013. "Investments and the holdup problem in a matching market," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 302-311.
    19. Alan Schwartz, 2004. "The Law and Economics of Costly Contracting," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 2-31, April.
    20. Bester, Helmut & Krähmer, Daniel, 2012. "Exit options in incomplete contracts with asymmetric information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1947-1968.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:442-:d:1035590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.