This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Hold-Up under Costly Litigation and Imperfect Courts of Law

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
C. Manuel Willington () (ILADES-Georgetown University, Universidad Alberto Hurtado)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Two main results have been obtained on the literature on contractual solutions to the hold-up problem. First, a contract specifying a price and quantity of the final good to be traded will, fairly generally, induce efficient investments if these are 'selfish' in nature, i.e., each party's investment directly affects only his own profit (Edlin and Reichelstein, 1996). Second, and in contrast, no contract however complicated is of any value in reducing the inefficiency if the investments are 'cooperative', i.e., each party's investment affects directly only the other party's payoff (Che and Hausch, 1999). We show that courts of law may play a more important role in real contract disputes than has been realized. The key observation is that the presence of a court can make it valuable to specify putative investment levels in a contract - even if the court remains ignorant of the parties' actual investment levels. This is because the putative investment levels influence the expected damages the court awards if it decides that breach occurred. The probability of the court deciding breach occurred is independent of the actual investment levels - they remain entirely unverifiable. It depends at most on the parties' court expenditures. These expenditures make litigation costly for the parties, and, therefore, in equilibrium they settle before trial. The presence of even such an imperfect court has a significant impact on whether contracts alleviate hold-up inefficiencies. In the case of one-sided cooperative investment, we show that the first-best outcome can sometimes be achieved by the adoption of a simple non-contingent contract, contrary to the negative result of Che and Hausch (1999). Our result extends to the case of hybrid investment, provided the investment is mainly cooperative.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.economia.uahurtado.cl/pdf/publicaciones/inv144.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Ilades-Georgetown University, School of Economics and Bussines in its series ILADES-Georgetown University Working Papers with number inv144.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ila:ilades:inv144

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Erasmo Escala 1835, 6500620 Santiago
Phone: (562) 692-0265
Fax: (562) 692-0303
Email:
Web page: http://www.economia.uahurtado.cl/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Marcela Perticara).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Rogerson, William P, 1992. "Contractual Solutions to the Hold-Up Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 59(4), pages 777-93, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Bull, Jesse & Watson, Joel, 2004. "Evidence disclosure and verifiability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 1-31, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Klein, Benjamin & Crawford, Robert G & Alchian, Armen A, 1978. "Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(2), pages 297-326, October.
  4. Jesse Bull, 2006. "Costly Evidence Production and the Limits of Verifiability," Working Papers 0611, Florida International University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  5. Yeon-Koo Che & Tai-Yeong Chung, 1999. "Contract Damages and Cooperative Investments," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 84-105, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. Alan Schwartz & Joel Watson, 2001. "The Law and Economics of Costly Contracting," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series 2001-21, Department of Economics, UC San Diego. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Froeb, Luke M. & Kobayashi, Bruce H., 2001. "Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 267-272, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Luca Anderlini, Leonardo Felli & Andrew Postlewaite, . "Courts of Law and Unforeseen Contingencies," Working Papers gueconwpa~03-03-26, Georgetown University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  9. Tirole, Jean, 1986. "Procurement and Renegotiation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(2), pages 235-59, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  11. Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 2000. "On the Economics of Trials: Adversarial Process, Evidence, and Equilibrium Bias," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 365-94, October.
  12. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 1999. "Unforeseen Contingencies and Incomplete Contracts," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 66(1), pages 83-114, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. De Fraja, Gianni, 1999. "After You Sir. Hold-Up, Direct Externalities, and Sequential Investment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 22-39, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. M. Dewatripont & E. Maskin, 1995. "Contractual Contingencies and Renegotiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 704-719, Winter. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Aghion, Philippe & Dewatripont, Mathias & Rey, Patrick, 1994. "Renegotiation Design with Unverifiable Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 257-82, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Alan Schwartz & Robert Scott, . "Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1011, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. [Downloadable!]
  17. Aaron Edlin & Stefan Reichelstein, 1995. "Holdups, Standard Breach Remedies, and Optimal Investment," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series 1155, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  18. Bernardo, Antonio E & Talley, Eric & Welch, Ivo, 2000. "A Theory of Legal Presumptions," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-49, April.
    Other versions:
  19. Jesse Bull, 2006. "Costly Evidence and Systems of Fact Finding," Working Papers 0612, Florida International University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  20. Macleod, W.B. & Malcomson, J.M., 1991. "Investments, Hold Up And The Reform Of Market Contracts," Cahiers de recherche 9114, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    Other versions:
  21. Aaron S. Edlin, 1994. "Cadillac Contracts and Up-Front Payments: Efficient Investment Under Expectation Damages," NBER Working Papers 4915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  22. Hart, Oliver D & Moore, John, 1988. "Incomplete Contracts and Renegotiation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 755-85, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  23. Jean Tirole, 1999. "Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 741-782, July.
  24. Coase, R H, 2000. "The Acquisition of Fisher Body by General Motors," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 15-31, April.
  25. Schwartz, Alan, 1992. "Relational Contracts in the Courts: An Analysis of Incomplete Agreements and Judicial Strategies," Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(2), pages 271-318, June.
  26. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-97, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-8.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.