Eastern Oregon University

Division of Distance Education

PHIL 410    Philosophy of Law —

Law and Economics

Drs. Jeff & Colleen Johnson

 

 

First Take Home Examination

 

Please write an eight to ten page, FORMAL (drafted, edited, spell-checked, etc.) paper addressing the following issues.

 

Colleen’s Neighborhood Feedlot is polluting the nearby community.  The level of pollution increases with its output.  The damages incurred by its neighbors also depend on output.  All of this is summarized in the schedule of benefits and damages below.

 

Colleen’s Neighborhood Feedlot

 

Output in 25 Unit Intervals

Marginal Profit

Marginal Damage

25

$200,000

$10,000

50

$100,000

$20,000

75

$75,000

$30,000

100

$50,000

$40,000

125

$30,000

$50,000

 

The neighbors have filed a lawsuit against the feedlot.  They seek compensatory damages or an injunction.  What should the court do?  What is the efficient thing to do?  Who should receive the entitlement?  Should it be a property rule, or a damage rule?  In light of this week’s discussion of the Coase theorem, transaction costs, and the assignment of legal entitlements, discuss the pros and cons of possible court decisions in terms of the forward-looking perspective of social efficiency, as well as any relevant backward-looking perspective of social efficiency, as well as any relevant backward-looking considerations.

 

One useful device is to write for a generally educated audience that has no knowledge of the material we have been covering.  Thus, you can see your job a teaching your reader about these concepts and issues.

 

Second Take Home Examination

 

Please write an eight to ten page, FORMAL (drafted, edited, spell-checked, etc.) paper addressing the following issues.  This essay covers Chapters 6-7 in the book and weeks 4-5 on the videos.

 

A group of citizens here in La Grande wanted to do something special for a young man, Joe Jock, suffering from a terminal disease—their idea came from the “Make a Wish” organization.  They wanted to fulfill a longtime dream of his owning a ’57 Chevy.  They negotiated with Adam to purchase his ’57 Chevy.  They believe the car is worth $4,000, but have bargained Adam down to $3,500 (see example on pp. 72-3).  Unfortunately, the donations have been slow coming in, so they entered into a contract with Adam agreeing to exchange the money for the car in three weeks.

 

When Joe was the star quarterback for La Grande High, he was single-handedly responsible for leading the team to victory of Big-city High in the state championship.  Carl and Edwina Urban have harbored resentment over this game for a long time.  They heard about the La Grande group’s plans for the present to Joe and have taken revenge.  They have offered to pay Adam $5,500 for the Chevy, and he has agreed.

 

Adam breached his contract with the La Grande group.  Joe is heartbroken, and the organization sues Adam.  What should the court do?  From the forward-looking perspective of social efficiency, explain what they will do and why.  From the backward-looking perspective of what’s just and fair, critically assess the court’s socially efficient outcome.  Assume your reader knows very little about contract law, or the jurisprudence of social efficiency.

 

 

Third Take Home Examination

 

Please write an eight to ten page, FORMAL (drafted, edited, spell-checked, etc.) paper addressing the following issues.  This essay covers Chapters 8-10 in the book and weeks 6-8 on the videos.

 

In his famous article, “A Theory of Strict Liability,” Richard Epstein argues that tort law’s movement in the direction of great fault liability is a mistake, both from the teleological perspective of social efficiency, and the deontological perspective of justice and fairness.  A big part of his argument is the case of Vincent v. Lake Erie Transport Co.  Please write an analysis of this case and justify your assessment of why, or why not, it supports Epstein’s thesis.

 

Assume your reader has no technical background in torts or economic theory.  Your discussion should address the following points:

 

·        What is the efficiency argument for negligence (fault liability)?

 

·        What normative intuitions support this standard?

 

·        What are the facts in Vincent?

 

·        Why is this case embarrassing to supporters of negligence?

 

·        Is the case fatal for this standard theory of tort liability?

 

·        Why or why not?

 

 

Fourth Take Home Examination

 

Please write an eight to ten page, FORMAL (drafted, edited, spell-checked, etc.) paper addressing the following issues.

 

Whenever Americans get scared, or angry, about crime, there is always a call for a “get tough” policy.  Thus, we insist on longer prison sentences, mandatory prison sentences, and other such changes in our criminal law.  We continue to insist on the use of the death penalty, in spite of the fact that most of our first world international partners have officially, or unofficially, abandoned capital punishment.

 

Analyze and critique these uniquely American social and political instincts in terms of the material we have covered in this class.  Feel free to defend your own moral, political, and economic views on the subject of criminal punishment.