IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/vhsuwp/2013_137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tipping the Scales – Conciliation, Appeal and the Relevance of Judicial Ambition

Author

Listed:
  • Christmann, Robin

    () (Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg)

Abstract

Judges become ambitious decision makers when they face appellate review. This paper applies a contract theoretic perspective to the behavior of self-interested trial judges in a two-level court system and analyzes the consequences for contracting in “the shadow of” the court. Confronted with the factual ambiguity of an assigned case, rational judges pursue an (privately) optimal strategy to conclude the dispute and tip the scales of the trial outcome. We show that even if judges generally dislike errors and have no personal preference for a specific party, these effects of judicial agency manipulate the implemented court accuracy and degrade the contract outcome. Our implications put into perspective the traditional function of appellate courts to foster the accuracy of enforcement and identify the need for a complex measurement of judicial performance. The model also reveals that a judicial tendency to conclude lawsuits in the conciliatory hearing may overly strain contract output.

Suggested Citation

  • Christmann, Robin, 2013. "Tipping the Scales – Conciliation, Appeal and the Relevance of Judicial Ambition," Working Paper 137/2013, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:vhsuwp:2013_137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hsu-hh.de/fgvwl/index.php?brick_id=YI3l9Uv0PdkGdLIZ
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    court error; judicial behavior; reputation; contract theory;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ris:vhsuwp:2013_137. 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: (Klaus Bekcmann). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/egbwhde.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.