Music: The Beatles, Magical Mystery Tour (1967) (on one speaker  ) Written Briefs Due: HELIUM : Monday 9/15 (Mullett) CHLORINE : Wednesday 9/17 (Manning)

KRYPTON: DQ25 (Applying Shaw) “[T]he pursuer must [1] bring them into his power and control, and [2] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Liesner (trial court facts): –Mortal wound + Vigorous pursuit –Escape improbable

KRYPTON: DQ25 (Applying Shaw) “[T]he pursuer must [1] bring them into his power and control, and [2] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Pierson facts

KRYPTON: DQ26 (Sunken Boat) Should the result in Shaw be the same if the fishermen used a sunken boat instead of a net to trap the fish? Assume the boat retains the same percentage of fish who enter it as the net in Shaw.

KRYPTON: DQ26 (Sunken Boat) Marking/Notice to Others will be an important recurring policy concern. See Shaw test part 2: “ maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon” See Pierson: Mortal wounding + pursuit OK because hunter “thereby manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal”

NEON: DQ27 Can you frame a single rule that makes sense of the results in Pierson, Liesner, and Shaw? Why is this a useful exercise? me examples ; I’ll write up

RING STORY (10/78-1/84)

New Issue in Unit IB: Escape GENERALLY: WHEN DOES OWNER OF ESCAPED ANIMAL LOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS? –Why Different from Ring? –What Facts are Relevant?

New Issue in Unit IB: Escape Different from First Possession (Where All 3 Cases Ask Similar Qs) Escape Cases Focus on Different Concerns –Mullett: Applies English Common Law Rule –Manning: Fact-Specific Result Not Using English Common Law Test

NEON: DQ28 Assume that we are in a world where the net-owners have no enforceable rights in fish caught in their nets until they physically remove the fish from the nets. Thomas chooses to take fish from the owners’ nets. Who is affected by this decision?

EXTERNALITIES Cost or benefit external to a decision- making process –Must be w reference to particular decision –helpful to start by identifying decision-maker

EXTERNALITIES Cost or benefit external to a decision- making process –Must be w reference to particular decision –helpful to start by identifying decision-maker If decision-maker considers a cost, but chooses to absorb it, not an externality –E.g., Thomas considers own exertion necessary to take from nets, may decide to take anyway

EXTERNALITIES Some Likely Externalities in DQ28: –Costs to net-owners & their families –Loss of availability to purchasers from net- owners –Effects on net manufacturers –Effects on fish & food chain (might be benefits if net-fishing discouraged)

“INTERNALIZING” EXTERNALITIES Changing Rules, Laws or Circum- stances to Force Decision-Maker to Take Costs or Benefits Into Account

“INTERNALIZING” EXTERNALITIES Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take Costs or Benefits Into Account Imposed from Outside; Generally Not Done by Decision-Maker

“INTERNALIZING” EXTERNALITIES Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take Costs or Benefits Into Account DQ30 (Oxygen): Examples of Internalizing from Outside Reading?

“INTERNALIZING” EXTERNALITIES Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take Costs or Benefits Into Account Beneficial Because Means Price of Activities Will Reflect Real Costs (e.g., pollution costs)

“INTERNALIZING” EXTERNALITIES Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take Costs or Benefits Into Account Beneficial Because Means Price of Activities Will Reflect Real Costs (e.g., pollution costs) Can Internalize Several Ways –Require Payment of Damages –Criminalize Activity –Private Negotiation (Bribes)

NEON: DQ28 If the fish are worth more to the net-owners than to Thomas, presumably there is some amount of money they could contract to pay him to leave the fish alone that would leave all parties better off than before the contract.

NEON: DQ28 What obstacles stand in the way of the parties entering this contract? Assume cost to net-owner is $500/wk & benefit to Thomas is $300/wk. Assume One-on-One Negotiation.

Costs of One-on-One Negotiation Investigation Costs Bargaining Costs Strategic Behavior Enforcement Costs

NEON: DQ28 What obstacles stand in the way of the parties entering this contract? Assume cost to each net-owner is $500/wk & benefit to each fish-taker is $300/wk. Assume Multi-Party Negotiation.

Additional Costs of Multi-Party Negotiation Free-Riding Holdouts Organization/Management Costs

Collectively: “Transaction Costs” Investigation Costs Bargaining Costs Strategic Behavior Enforcement Costs Free-Riding Holdouts Organization/Manag ement Costs

Transaction Costs Can Prevent Parties from Reaching Bargains that are “Efficient” (= Would Make Everyone Better Off)

The Rhythm of the First Year Same at Every School Where I’ve Taught

The Rhythm of the First Year Three Typical Low Points: 1.Mid-September 2.Mid-October 3.Mid-November

The Rhythm of the First Year The Crisis of Mid-September: I am the Stupidest Person Here & They Let Me In By Mistake

The Rhythm of the First Year The Crisis of Mid-September: Learning New Language by Immersion

The Rhythm of the First Year The Crisis of Mid-September: Learning New Language by Immersion Easy Questions & Hard Questions

The Rhythm of the First Year The Crisis of Mid-September: Learning New Language by Immersion Easy Questions & Hard Questions Other Perils of the Socratic Method

The Rhythm of the First Year The Crisis of Mid-September: Learning New Language by Immersion Easy Questions & Hard Questions Other Perils of the Socratic Method Calisthenics: Why We Do What We Do