Faculty Bibliography

This paper reports the results of all experiment on exclusive contracts. We replicate the strategic environment described by Rasmusen, Ramseyer, and Wiley (1991) and Segal and Whinston (2000). Our findings are as follows. First, when the buyers can communicate, discrimination raises the likelihood of exclusion. Second, when the incumbent seller is unable to discriminate and must make the same offers to the buyers, communication reduces the likelihood of exclusion. Communication also induces more generous offers when the seller cannot discriminate, and divide-and-conquer offers when the seller call discriminate. Third, when communication is allowed, payoff endogeneity increases the likelihood of exclusion. (JEL C72, C91, D62, D86, K12, K21, L12, L42)

The purpose of this chapter is to survey the academic literature on the economics of litigation and to synthesize its main themes. The chapter begins by introducing the basic economic framework for studying litigation and out-of-court settlement. One set of issues addressed is positive (or descriptive) in nature. Under what conditions will someone decide to file suit? What determines how much is spent on a lawsuit? When do cases settle out of court? Important normative issues are also addressed. Are the litigation decisions made by private parties in the interest of society as a whole? Next, the chapter surveys some of the more active areas in the litigation literature. Topics include rules of evidence, loser-pays rules, appeals, contingent fees for attorneys, alternative dispute resolution, class actions, and plea bargaining.

Should the manufacturer of a product be held legally responsible when a consumer, while using the product, harms someone else? We show that if consumers have deep pockets then manufacturer liability is not economically efficient. It is more efficient for the consumers themselves to bear responsibility for the harms that they cause. If homogeneous consumers have limited assets, then the most efficient rule is "residual-manufacturer liability" where the manufacturer pays the shortfall in damages not paid by the consumer. Residual-manufacturer liability distorts the market quantity when consumers' willingness to pay is correlated with their propensity to cause harm. It distorts product safety when consumers differ in their wealth levels. In both cases, consumer-only liability may be more efficient.