IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/urv/wpaper/2072-376027.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Argumentation Quantity and Quality: A Litigation Success Function

Author

Listed:
  • Osório, António (António Miguel)
  • Luppi, Barbara

Abstract

Arguments are statements used to persuade someone or in support of a claim. However, these are not perfect and the opponents can exploit them to build their own arguments. In this paper, we propose a new litigation success function that (i) considers the intrinsic and immutable strength of the arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendant, (ii) solves the limitations of the existing literature in dealing with the English fee-shifting system, and (iii) is flexible and tractable in analytical terms. As a robustness check, the proposed litigation success function confirms several important results in the literature, but also brings new insights on how argumentation strength affects the individuals' efforts and the decision to file and contest lawsuits in different fee-shifting systems. In this context, we also show how to introduce the worldwide-accepted presumption of innocence in favor of the defendant and the possibility of settlement. Keywords: Litigation success function, Contests success function, Argumentation strength, Fee-shifting systems. JEL classification: C72, D72, D74, K41.

Suggested Citation

  • Osório, António (António Miguel) & Luppi, Barbara, 2019. "Argumentation Quantity and Quality: A Litigation Success Function," Working Papers 2072/376027, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:urv:wpaper:2072/376027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2072/376027
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hirshleifer, Jack & Osborne, Evan, 2001. "Truth, Effort, and the Legal Battle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 108(1-2), pages 169-195, July.
    2. Stergios Skaperdas & Samarth Vaidya, 2012. "Persuasion as a contest," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(2), pages 465-486, October.
    3. Hughes, James W & Snyder, Edward A, 1995. "Litigation and Settlement under the English and American Rules: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 225-250, April.
    4. J. Amegashie, 2006. "A contest success function with a tractable noise parameter," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 135-144, January.
    5. Dasgupta, Ani & Nti, Kofi O., 1998. "Designing an optimal contest," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 587-603, November.
    6. Luis Corchón, 2007. "The theory of contests: a survey," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(2), pages 69-100, September.
    7. Bernardo, Antonio E & Talley, Eric & Welch, Ivo, 2000. "A Theory of Legal Presumptions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-49, April.
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy, "undated". "Contest success function with the possibility of a draw: axiomatization," IEW - Working Papers 208, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    10. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2010. "Contest success function with the possibility of a draw: Axiomatization," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 267-276, March.
    11. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Eric Langlais & Bruno Lovat & Francesco Parisi, 2013. "Asymmetries in Rent-Seeking," EconomiX Working Papers 2013-5, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    12. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Francesco Parisi, 2014. "Returns to effort in rent-seeking games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 99-104, April.
    13. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 1999. "Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 271-288, September.
    14. Alex Robson & Stergios Skaperdas, 2008. "Costly enforcement of property rights and the Coase theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 109-128, July.
    15. Katz, Avery, 1988. "Judicial decisionmaking and litigation expenditure," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 127-143, December.
    16. Coursey, Don L. & Stanley, Linda R., 1988. "Pretrial bargaining behavior within the shadow of the law: Theory and experimental evidence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 161-179, December.
    17. Konrad, Kai A., 2009. "Strategy and Dynamics in Contests," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199549603, Decembrie.
    18. Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2012. "Litigation and legal evolution: does procedure matter?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 181-201, July.
    19. Waldfogel, Joel, 1995. "The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 229-260, April.
    20. Snyder, Edward A & Hughes, James W, 1990. "The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 345-380, Fall.
    21. Guerra Alice & Luppi Barbara & Parisi Francesco, 2019. "Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.
    22. Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1999. "Stampede to Judgment: Persuasive Influence and Herding Behavior by Courts," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 1(1-2), pages 158-189, Fall.
    23. Rosenberg, D. & Shavell, S., 1985. "A model in which suits are brought for their nuisance value," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 3-13, June.
    24. Carbonara Emanuela & Parisi Francesco & von Wangenheim Georg, 2015. "Rent-Seeking and Litigation: The Hidden Virtues of Limited Fee Shifting," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 113-148, July.
    25. Jack Hirshleifer, 1989. "Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 251-262, Springer.
    26. Plott, Charles R, 1987. "Legal Fees: A Comparison of the American and English Rules," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 185-192, Fall.
    27. Katz, Avery, 1987. "Measuring the Demand for Litigation: Is the English Rule Really Cheaper?," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 143-176, Fall.
    28. Kobayashi, Bruce H. & Lott, John Jr., 1996. "In defense of criminal defense expenditures and plea bargaining," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 397-416, December.
    29. Parisi, Francesco, 2002. "Rent-seeking through litigation: adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 193-216, August.
    30. Parisi, Francesco, 2002. "Rent-seeking through litigation: adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 193-216, August.
    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. Osório-Costa, António M., 2015. "Argumentation Quantity and Quality: A Litigation Success Function," MPRA Paper 63275, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Jia, Hao & Skaperdas, Stergios & Vaidya, Samarth, 2013. "Contest functions: Theoretical foundations and issues in estimation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-222.
    3. Carbonara Emanuela & Parisi Francesco & von Wangenheim Georg, 2015. "Rent-Seeking and Litigation: The Hidden Virtues of Limited Fee Shifting," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 113-148, July.
    4. Farmer Amy & Pecorino Paul, 2016. "Litigation with a Variable Cost of Trial," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 203-226, July.
    5. Wladislaw Mill & Jonathan Staebler, 2023. "Spite in Litigation," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_401, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    6. Ben Chen & José A. Rodrigues-Neto, 2023. "The interaction of emotions and cost-shifting rules in civil litigation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(3), pages 841-885, April.
    7. Zhou, J., 2010. "Access to justice : An economic approach," Other publications TiSEM 9d70f451-35c4-4878-92bf-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Baharad, Roy & Cohen, Chen & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2022. "Litigation with adversarial efforts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    9. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2013. "A note on the timing of investments in litigation contests," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 313-326, June.
    10. Chopard, Bertrand & Cortade, Thomas & Langlais, Eric, 2010. "Trial and settlement negotiations between asymmetrically skilled parties," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 18-27, March.
    11. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2012. "Emotions in litigation contests," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 195-215, September.
    12. Hao Jia & Stergios Skaperdas, 2011. "Technologies of Conflict," Working Papers 101111, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    13. Stergios Skaperdas & Samarth Vaidya, 2012. "Persuasion as a contest," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(2), pages 465-486, October.
    14. Corchón, Luis & Dahm, Matthias, 2011. "Welfare maximizing contest success functions when the planner cannot commit," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 309-317.
    15. Zhou, J., 2007. "In Litigation : How Far do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead," Other publications TiSEM 84767819-ad3f-431f-a39a-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Zhou, J., 2007. "In Litigation : How Far do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead," Discussion Paper 2007-10, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    17. Daniel P. Kessler & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2004. "Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System," NBER Working Papers 10825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Yang, Erya, 2020. "Optimism and pessimism in bargaining and contests," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    19. Karl Wärneryd, 2012. "Nine points of the law: evidentiary rules and the costs of litigation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 279-285, December.
    20. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2012. "Contingent fees meet the British rule: an exploratory study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 499-510, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Argumentació jurídica; 33 - Economia; 34 - Dret;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:urv:wpaper:2072/376027. 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: Ariadna Casals (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deurves.html .

    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.