IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Ex ante versus ex post expectation damages

  • Liu, Zhiyong
  • Avraham, Ronen
Registered author(s):

    What information should courts utilize when assessing contract damages? Should they award damages that were rationally foreseeable at the ex ante stage (ex ante expected damages)? Or should they award damages at the ex post level, incorporating new information revealed after contracting (ex post actual damages)? In practice courts have varied between the two approaches, awarding damages equal to the lower, or the higher, of the two measures of damages. This article shows that ex ante expectation damages are more efficient than ex post actual damages through a simple model of costly litigation for contract breach, where there are either costs of verifying the breach victim's ex post damages, or general litigation costs such as attorneys’ fees. Courts should award foreseeable flat damages, rather than seeking ex post accuracy and awarding actual damages, because actual damages lead to distortions in breach incentives once we take parties’ litigation decisions as endogenous. With costly litigation, ex post expectation damages may cause over-performance or under-performance depending on whether the American or the English rule applies and on the size of the litigation cost. We find that regardless of the direction of the distortion, actual damages induce inefficiency. Ex ante damages are more efficient because of the insensitivity of parties’ litigation decisions to their ex post private information under fixed damages. Our results are robust when accounting for renegotiation.

    If 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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818812000440
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Law and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 32 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 339-355

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:339-355
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Ronen Avraham & Zhiyong Liu, 2012. "Private Information and the Option to Not Sue: A Reevaluation of Contract Remedies," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 77-102.
    2. Edlin, Aaron S., 2003. "Optimal Penalties in Contracts," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt2w81s277, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    3. Chris Sanchirico & George Triantis, . "Evidentiary Arbitrage: The Fabrication of Evidence and The Verifiability of Contract Performance," University of Virginia John M. Olin Program for Law & Economics Working Paper Series uvalwps-1011, University of Virginia School of Law.
    4. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
    5. George Triantis, 2008. "Evidentiary Arbitrage: The Fabrication of Evidence and the Verifiability of Contract Performance," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 72-94, May.
    6. Albert Choi & George Triantis, 2008. "Completing Contracts in the Shadow of Costly Verification," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 503-534, 06.
    7. Shavell, Steven, 1984. "The Design of Contracts and Remedies for Breach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 121-48, February.
    8. Stole, Lars A, 1992. "The Economics of Liquidated Damage Clauses in Contractual Environments with Private Information," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 582-606, October.
    9. Png, I. P. L., 1987. "Litigation, liability, and incentives for care," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 61-85, October.
    10. Alan Schwartz & Joel Watson, . "The Law and Economics of Costly Contracting," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1004, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    11. Chung, T.Y., 1991. "On the Social Optimality of Liquidated Damage Clauses: An Economic Analysis," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9102, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    12. Antonio Bernardo & Eric L. Talley & Ivo Welch, 1999. "A Theory of Legal Presumptions," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm118, Yale School of Management.
    13. Keith N. Hylton, 2002. "Welfare Implications of Costly Litigation under Strict Liability," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 18-43, January.
    14. Bebchuk, Lucian Ayre & Shavell, Steven, 1991. "Information and the Scope of Liability for Breach of Contract: The Rule of Hadley vs. Baxendale," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 284-312, Fall.
    15. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 1993. "Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages," NBER Working Papers 4287, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Ronen Avraham & Zhiyong Liu, 2006. "Incomplete Contracts with Asymmetric Information: Exclusive Versus Optional Remedies," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 523-561.
    17. Aaron S. Edlin & Alan Schwartz, 2003. "Optimal Penalties in Contracts," Law and Economics 0303002, EconWPA.
    18. 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 225-50, April.
    19. Kaplow, Louis, 1994. "The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 307-401, January.
    20. Christoph Lülfesmann, 2001. "Strategic Defection in Bilateral Trade," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse4_2001, University of Bonn, Germany.
    21. 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.
    22. Hylton, Keith N, 1990. "Costly Litigation and Legal Error under Negligence," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 433-52, Fall.
    23. Steven Shavell, 1980. "Damage Measures for Breach of Contract," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 466-490, Autumn.
    24. Polinsky, A Mitchell & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1988. "The Welfare Implications of Costly Litigation for the Level of Liability," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 151-64, January.
    25. Adler, Barry E., 1999. "The Questionable Ascent of Hadley v. Baxendale," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt3wh5v8j9, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    26. Samuel A. Rea, Jr., 1984. "Efficiency Implications of Penalties and Liquidated Damages," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 147-168, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:339-355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.