MUSIC: THE MAMAS & THE PAPAS, 16 of Their Greatest Hits ( ) ***************************** UPCOMING LUNCHES: MEET ON 12:05 B1 TODAY Bianchi Fasani; Garry; Gonzalez; Iftikhar; Klock; Parra; Roberts B2 WEDNESDAY Fayne; Heino; Ramlal; Revah; Sader; Simowitz; Walls

RING STORY (10/78-1/84)

Introduction to Escape Generally: Difficult for an Owner to Lose Property Rights Accidentally Return of the Ring We Don’t Presume Abandonment from Carelessness Hard to Achieve Adverse Possession (See Lutz)

Introduction to Escape Unit IB: When Does Owner of Escaped Animal Lose Property Rights? – Why Different from Ring? – What Facts are Relevant?

Introduction to Escape : Recurring Terminology Original Owner (OO) (can’t just say “owner” b/c unclear who owns animal after escape) Finder (F) Does OO lose or retain property rights in the escaped animal? (v. Unit IA: Did pursuer acquire property rights to animal)

Introduction to Escape : DQ 39: URANIUM Why should an OO ever lose property rights in an escaped wild animal? Why might we treat an escaped animal differently from a ring? Let’s Get Some Ideas on the Table

Introduction to Escape : DQ 39: URANIUM Can you think of a circumstance where it would be unfair to return an escaped animal to original owner? Focus on right & wrong here & not legal doctrine.

Introduction to Escape : DQ 40: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Language in Cases? – Although clearly nothing directly targeting – Until something on point, look where you can

Introduction to Escape : DQ 40: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Rewarding Useful Labor/Investment?

Introduction to Escape : DQ 40: URANIUM Rewarding Useful Labor/Investment? Labor of OO? – Acquisition: Investment in purchase or capture – While Owned: In confining, maintaining, training – After Escape: In pursuit Labor of F? – In capturing – In confining, maintaining, training

Introduction to Escape : DQ 40: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Providing Certainty?

Introduction to Escape : DQ 40: URANIUM Providing Certainty? Certainty to OO? – No “Perfect Cage Rule”: Don’t have to take ridiculous steps to keep from escaping? – Aware of What is Necessary to Retain O-Ship? Certainty to Decision-Maker: Rule is Easy to Apply? Certainty to Finder? (we’ll come back to)

Introduction to Escape : Mullett & Manning All 3 First Possession Cases Ask Similar Qs These Cases Use Two Different Approaches: – Mullett: Applies English Common Law Rule – Manning: Fact-Specific Result Not Using English Common Law Test We’ll spend 4 classes working through these cases in detail. Now quick intro to Manning

Manning v. Mitcherson Once Upon a Time in a small town in Georgia there lived 2 Canary Birds …

Manning v. Mitcherson “ Sweet ” lived with Mrs. Mitcherson [“ Sour ”] lived with Mr. & Mrs. Manning Looked almost identical Same parted crest Both escaped

Manning v. Mitcherson One of the escaped Canary Birds flew into Mr. Brown ’ s kitchen. Mr. Brown gave it to the Mannings. The Mannings refused Mrs. Mitcherson ’ s request for the bird. Mrs. Mitcherson sued.

Manning v. Mitcherson : DQ 41: URANIUM ( What ’ s at Issue ?) Magistrate / Justice of Peace Rules in Favor of Plaintiff Mitcherson. Ga Supr Ct.: “ The answer of the ex - officio justice of the peace in this case, the same being a certiorari and no traverse thereof, must be taken as true,...” “no traverse thereof” Means?

Manning v. Mitcherson : DQ 41: URANIUM ( What ’ s at Issue ?) Justice of Peace Rules in Favor of Plaintiff “ The answer of the ex - officio justice of the peace in this case, the same being a certiorari and no traverse thereof, must be taken as true,...” “ no traverse thereof ” = Factual findings not Q ’ ed. So what are facts for purposes of the case ?

Manning v. Mitcherson : DQ 41: URANIUM ( What ’ s at Issue ?) Facts for purposes of the case = – Plaintiff ’ s Version = – Canary in Browns ’ Kitchen was “ Sweet ” So What is Defendant’s Legal Claim on Appeal?

Manning v. Mitcherson : DQ 41: URANIUM ( What ’ s at Issue ?) Defendant ’ s Legal Claim Not “It’s My Bird” (No Traverse) Not “It Was Never Her Bird” (Years In Cage) Must Be: “She Lost Property Rights When It Escaped”

Manning v. Mitcherson : DQ 41: URANIUM ( What ’ s at Issue ?) Why Did This Case Get to Georgia Supreme Court ???!!! Why did the Mannings Keep Fighting? Why did Mrs. Mitcherson?

LOGISTICS: CLASS #11 No Class Monday & Tuesday OXYGEN: Mullett Brief Due Thu 9pm ALL: Assignment #1 Due Mon 9pm Questions on Assignments?

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS = DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION STEPS FROM LAST TIME TO SEE IF/HOW CHANGE IN RIGHTS FITS FIRST THESIS Identify decision/activity at issue Identify old rule Identify neg. externalities under old rule Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Identify decision/activity at issue Identify old rule Identify neg. externalities under old rule Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time Identify neg. externalities under old rule Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim) Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time; Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim) French Arrive; Price of Pelts Increases How does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time; Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim) French Arrive; Price of Pelts Rises  Both Cost & Likelihood of Overhunting Increase What happens next? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN French Arrive; Price of Pelts Rises  Both Cost & Likelihood of Overhunting Increase Tribe Develops Property Rights System Must have invoked decision-making system Decided on new rules & mechanisms to implement [Incurring Transaction Costs associated with change] If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN Tribe Develops Property Rights System Incurring Transaction Costs Associated with Change Can Explain Under Demsetz First Thesis: Perceived Costs of Potential Overkilling Increase Become Greater than Costs of Change Leading to Change in Rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ34: OXYGEN Why does the author believe that the tribes of the Southwestern U.S. did not adopt a system for rights to Buffalo similar to the one the Montagne for rights to beavers?

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ34: OXYGEN Why does the author believe that the tribes of the Southwestern U.S. did not adopt a system similar to that of the Montagne? No Scarcity Issue Beavers Dam BUT Buffalo “Roam” (Harder/More Expensive to Create Exclusive Property Rights)

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ35 (SEXUAL HARASSMENT) Identify decision/activity at issue Identify old rule Identify neg. externalities under old rule Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ35 (AIR POLLUTION): OXYGEN Identify decision/activity at issue Identify old rule Identify neg. externalities under old rule Identify change in circumstances Does change increase neg. externalities? If cost of externalities > cost of change  change in rule

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost of internalization.” Useful description of how legal change can occur Going forward, can use to argue that legal change should occur. Questions?

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost of internalization.” Useful description of how legal change can occur. Going forward, can use to argue that legal change should occur b/c social changes have greatly increased negative externalities.

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost of internalization.” Useful description of how legal change can occur Can use to argue that legal change should occur Questions?

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS Over Time, Process Described in 1 st Thesis Leads to More and More Private Property

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS DQ36: KRYPTON Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power/Force to Exclude Others) Common Law re Rights among Family Members Fairly Uncommon Today

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS DQ36: KRYPTON Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power to Exclude) 2.Communal Ownership No one can exclude others completely In practice, often variants of First in Time

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS DQ36: KRYPTON Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power to Exclude) 2.Communal Ownership (Can’t Exclude/1 st -in-Time) 3.Can Have Non-Communal State Ownership Like Private Property BUT Gov’t Management E.g., Military Bases