Does the English Rule Discourage Low-Probability-of-Prevailing Plaintiffs?
AbstractOne of the principal results in the economic theory of litigation is that the English rule of fee allocation (in which the loser pays the winner's litigation costs) is better at discouraging suits by low-probability-of-prevailing plaintiffs than the American rule (in which each side bears its own costs). This result has been demonstrated under the assumption that all suits that are filed go to trial. Using a standard asymmetric- information model of litigation, we show that when the settlement process is taken into account the English rule results in more low-probability-of-prevailing plaintiffs going to trial than the American rule. In this sense, the English rule encourages low-probability plaintiffs more than the American rule. Copyright 1998 by the University of Chicago.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Legal Studies.
Volume (Year): 27 (1998)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/
Other versions of this item:
- Polinsky, A Mitchell & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1998. "Does the English Rule Discourage Low-Probability-of-Prevailing Plaintiffs?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 141-57, January.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Baye, M.R. & Kovenock D. & De Vries, C.G., 2000.
"Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: an Auction-Theoretic Approach,"
Purdue University Economics Working Papers
1137, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. Vries, 2005. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(505), pages 583-601, 07.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. de Vries, 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-103/2, Tinbergen Institute.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. de Vries, 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-13, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper De Vries, 2000. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 373, CESifo Group Munich.
- Michael R. Baye & Dan Kovenock & Casper G. de Vries, 2004. "Comparative Analysis of Litigation Systems: An Auction-Theoretic Approach," Working Papers 2004-24, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
- Alex Esteller-More, . "Optimal user charges on judicial ligitation. An analysis for the Spanish case," Studies on the Spanish Economy 67, FEDEA.
- Garoupa, Nuno, 1999. "The economics of political dishonesty and defamation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 167-180, June.
- Echazu, Luciana & Garoupa, Nuno, 2012. "Why not adopt a loser-pays-all rule in criminal litigation?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-241.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.