Costly Evidence and Systems of Fact Finding
AbstractThis paper compares the relative merits of adversarial and inquisitorial systems of civil procedure in the presence of evidence suppression. Each party has the incentive to suppress evidence that may damage her case, and to reveal any evidence that strengthens her case. I model the decision of a litigant to suppress evidence. The court conditions its action (transfers between the parties) upon the evidence which is revealed. Enforcement costs, which are the cost of suppression and the cost of requesting evidence, are a loss to the relationship and form the basis for my evaluation of the relative merits of each system. I find that neither system always outperforms the other. The strength of the inquisitorial system is that it allows for randomization over evidence requests, which leads to lower expected enforcement cost. Litigants cannot commit to randomize as they are motivated by the expected award in litigation. The strength of the adversarial system is that it sometimes allows litigants to utilize their information about the level of suppression.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Florida International University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 0612.
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2006
Date of revision:
contracts; litigation; fact finding;
Other versions of this item:
- C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
- D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances
- K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bernstein, Lisa, 1992. "Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 115-57, January.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1993.
"Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation,"
NBER Working Papers
3634, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1991. "Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 562-570, Winter.
- Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2004.
"Evidence disclosure and verifiability,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 1-31, September.
- Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2002. "Evidence Disclosure and Verfiability," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt19p7z2gm, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2000. "Evidence Disclosure and Verifiability," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt6th0060j, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Antonio Bernardo & Eric L. Talley & Ivo Welch, 1999.
"A Theory of Legal Presumptions,"
Yale School of Management Working Papers
ysm118, Yale School of Management.
- Hatzis, Aristides N., 2002. "Having the cake and eating it too: efficient penalty clauses in Common and Civil contract law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 381-406, December.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1999.
"The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law,"
NBER Working Papers
6993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chris Sanchirico, . "Evidence Tampering," Scholarship at Penn Law upenn_wps-1011, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
- Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1994. "An Economic Model of Legal Discovery," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 435-63, January.
- Froeb, Luke M. & Kobayashi, Bruce H., 2001. "Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 267-272, February.
- Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2007.
"Hard evidence and mechanism design,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 75-93, January.
- Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2002. "Hard Evidence and Mechanism Design," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt7715f08f, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Watson, Joel & Bull, Jesse, 2006. "Hard Evidence and Mechanism Design," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt7973v805, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Joel Watson & Jesse Bull, 2004. "Hard Evidence and Mechanism Design," Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings 433, Econometric Society.
- Manuel Willington, 2013.
"Hold Up Under Costly Litigation and Imperfect Courts of Law,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1023-1055, October.
- C. Manuel Willington, . "Hold-Up under Costly Litigation and Imperfect Courts of Law," ILADES-Georgetown University Working Papers inv144, Ilades-Georgetown University, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Bussines.
- C. Manuel Willington, 2004. "Hold-Up under Costly Litigation and Imperfect Courts of Law," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 231, Econometric Society.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sheng Guo).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.