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! ]

A Dynamic Theory of Common Law Courts

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Álvaro Bustos

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

Abstract

We develop a model that determines when and how time-consistent and forward-looking courts should set and reform legal rules (a normative theory for dynamically efficient courts). We explicitly take into account that: 1) the optimal rules most likely are not the same for all periods of time; 2) courts can only rule at trials; 3) the enforcement strategies of courts determine the litigation strategies of present and future parties in conflict; and 4) the parties in conflict can contract around the rules.

As main results, we show that: 1) courts should set those rules that maximize the value of the present parties in conflict (statically efficient rules) only under extreme circumstances; 2) if legal rules are the only control variables, courts should adjust the unconstrained first-best rules for society in order to give the parties incentives to partially correct an inefficient frequency of litigation; 3) there always exists a distribution of the litigation expenses between the parties that generates an optimal frequency of trials in which case courts don't need to bias the rules. The model allows us to analyze the social desirability of two commonly suggested strategies to increase the frequency of shareholders' litigation: adding ambiguity to the law or involving public prosecutors as the N.Y.A.G.'s office or agencies as the S.E.C. In addition, the model also allows us to discuss when courts should set contingent rules (rules that adapt to the states of nature) instead of rigid rules (rules that don't adapt to the states of nature).

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.puc.cl/index/download.asp?id_publicacion=1575
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. in its series Documentos de Trabajo with number 352.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ioe:doctra:352

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Avda. Vicu� Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago
Phone: (562) 686-4303
Fax: (562) 553-1664
Email:
Web page: http://www.economia.puc.cl
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords: Efficiency of the Law; Myopic Courts; Forward-Looking Courts; Optimal Enforcement Strategies; Optimal Frequency of Trials; Rigid and Contingent Rules.;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Corporation and Securities Law
K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

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. Robert Cooter & Lewis Kornhauser & David Lane, 1979. "Liability Rules, Limited Information, and the Role of Precedent," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 366-373, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. C. Chu, 2003. "Precedent Externality, Network Effect, and the Possible Inefficiency of the Evolution of Laws," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 187-198, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1976. "Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," NBER Working Papers 0146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1980. "Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 42-64, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Shavell, Steven, 1997. "The Fundamental Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System," Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 575-612, June.
  6. Schnitzer, Monika, 1995. ""Breach of Trust" in Takeovers and the Optimal Corporate Charter," Journal of Industrial Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(3), pages 229-59, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  7. Xinyu Hua & Kathryn E. Spier, 2005. "Information and Externalities in Sequential Litigation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 215-, June.
  8. Mitton, Todd, 2002. "A cross-firm analysis of the impact of corporate governance on the East Asian financial crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 215-241, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Fon, Vincy & Parisi, Francesco, 2003. " Litigation and the Evolution of Legal Remedies: A Dynamic Model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(3-4), pages 419-33, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Bonomo, Marco & Carvalho, Carlos, 2004. "Endogenous Time-Dependent Rules and Inflation Inertia," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 36(6), pages 1015-41, December.
    Other versions:
  11. Murat Usman, 2002. "Verifiability and Contract Enforcement: A Model with Judicial Moral Hazard," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 67-94, April.
  12. Shavell, Steven, 1999. "The level of litigation: private versus social optimality of suit and of settlement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 99-115, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Evolution of Precedent," NBER Working Papers 11265, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-12.


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.