Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLucinda Douglas Modified over 9 years ago
1
Econ 522 Economics of Law Dan Quint Fall 2013 Lecture 15
2
1 First midterm will hopefully be graded by Wednesday HW3 (contract law) due next Thursday (November 7) Second midterm Wednesday before Thanksgiving (November 20) Definitely no lecture Wednesday of Thanksgiving week Possibly no lecture Monday of Thanksgiving week Logistics
3
2 Last week – lots of reasons a contract might not be enforced Derogation of public policy Incompetence, but generally not drunkenness Duress and Necessity Impossibility Bad information (fraud, failure to disclose, frustration of purpose, mutual mistake), but generally not unilateral mistake Vagueness, adhesion, unconscionability For each: is there an economic justification? Today: more on remedies for breach of contract But first… Last week
4
3 Another experiment: is trust a problem?
5
4 Without binding contracts, might be no reason for me to return your money, so no reason for you to trust me We motivated contracts with an agency (trust) game Player 1 (you) Trust meDon’t Player 2 (me) Share profitsKeep all the money (150, 50)(0, 200) (100, 0)
6
5 Player A starts with $10 Chooses how much of it to give to player B That money is tripled Player B has $10, plus 3x whatever A gave him/her Chooses how much (if any) to give back to player A So for example… if player A decides to send $3… then A has $7 left, and B has $19… and then B can send back to A any amount from 0 to $19 To see if trust is a problem, we’ll use a similar game as an experiment
7
6 Player 1 Send 10 Player 2 ((10 – x) + y, (10 + 3x) – y) Send 0 x Return 0Return 10+3x y Player 1 gets whatever he kept, plus whatever 2 sends him Player 2 gets 10, plus three times what 1 sends him, minus whatever he sends to player 1
8
7 Anonymously – A and B don’t know who each other are we’ll use student ID numbers to identify players, and play on paper Privately – A and B don’t interact, but will learn who each other are after the game still on paper, but with names, so B sees A’s name after class, Nathan will email A with B’s name Face to face – A and B can discuss the game before playing, but their actions remain private Publicly – A and B play out loud in front of the class We’ll try this game four different ways
9
8 Remedies for breach of contract
10
9 Party-designed remedies Remedies specified in the contract Court-imposed damages Court may decide promisee entitled to some level of damages Specific performance Forces breaching party to live up to contract Three broad types of remedy for breach of contract
11
10 Compensate promisee for the amount he expected to benefit from performance You agreed to buy an airplane for $350,000 You expected $500,000 of benefit from it Expectation damages: if I breach, I owe you that benefit ($500,000 if you already paid, $150,000 if you didn’t) “Positive damages” Make promisee indifferent between performance and breach Expectation damages
12
11 Reimburse promisee for cost of any reliance investments made, but not for additional surplus he expected to gain Restore promisee to level of well-being before he signed the contract You contracted to buy the plane and built a hangar If I breach, I owe you what you spent on the hangar, nothing else “Negative damages” – undo the negative (harm) that occurred Reliance damages
13
12 Give promisee benefit he would have gotten from his next-best option Make promisee indifferent between breach of the contract that was signed, and performance of best alternative contract You value plane at $500,000 You contract to buy plane from me for $350,000 Someone else was selling similar plane for $400,000 By the time I breach, that plane is no longer available I owe you $100,000 – the benefit you would have gotten from buying the other seller’s plane Opportunity cost damages
14
13 You agree to sell me ticket to Wisconsin-Ohio State football game for $50 Expectation damages: you owe me value of game minus $50 If I pay scalper $150, then expectation damages = $100 Reliance damages: maybe 0, or cost of whatever pre-game investments I made Example: expectation, reliance, and opportunity cost damages
15
14 You agree to sell me ticket to Wisconsin-Ohio State football game for $50 Expectation damages: you owe me value of game minus $50 If I pay scalper $150, then expectation damages = $100 Reliance damages: maybe 0, or cost of whatever pre-game investments I made When you agreed to sell me ticket, other tickets available for $70 Opportunity cost damages: $80 (I paid a scalper $150 to get in; I would have been $80 better off if I’d ignored your offer and paid someone else $70) Example: expectation, reliance, and opportunity cost damages
16
15 Ranking damages Expectation Damages Opportunity Cost Damages Reliance Damages Contract I Sign Best Alternative Do Nothing Breach + Expectation Damages Breach + Opportunity Cost Damages Breach + Reliance Damages $100$80$15
17
16 Hawkins had a scar on his hand McGee promised surgery to “make the hand a hundred percent perfect” Surgery was a disaster, left scar bigger and covered with hair Hawkins v McGee (“hairy hand case”)
18
17 Hawkins v McGee (“hairy hand case”) HairyScarredNext best doctor 100% Perfect $ Hand Initial Wealth + Reliance Damages + Opp Cost Damages + Expectation Damages Reliance DamagesOpp Cost DamagesExpectation Damages
19
18 Restitution Return money that was already received Disgorgement Give up wrongfully-gained profits Other court-ordered remedies
20
19 Restitution Return money that was already received Disgorgement Give up wrongfully-gained profits Specific Performance Promisor is forced to honor promise Civil law: often ordered instead of money damages Common law: money damages more common; S.P. sometimes used when seller breaches contract to sell a unique good Like injunctive relief Other court-ordered remedies
21
20 Peevyhouse v Garland Coal and Mining Co (OK Supreme Court, 1962) Garland contracted to strip-mine coal on Peevyhouse’s farm Contract specified Garland would restore property to original condition; Garland did not Restoration would cost $29,000 But “diminution in value” of farm was only $300 Original jury awarded $5,000 in damages, both parties appealed OK Supreme Court reduced damages to $300 Expectation damages vs. specific performance
22
21 At first, sounds like a perfect example of efficient breach Performing last part of contract would cost $29,000 Benefit to Peevyhouses would be $300 Efficient to breach and pay expectation damages, which is what happened But… Most coal mining contracts: standard per-acre diminution payment Peevyhouses refused to sign contract unless it specifically promised the restorative work Dissent: Peevyhouses entitled to specific performance (Peevyhouses seemed to value condition of property much more highly than change in market value) Expectation damages vs. specific performance
23
22 Contract promised restoration work, didn’t specify remedy if it wasn’t performed Which default rule works better: Default rule allowing Garland to breach and pay diminution fee? Default rule forcing Garland to perform restoration work? Ayres and Gertner: default rule should penalize the better- informed party Garland routinely signed contracts like these Peevyhouses were doing this for the first time Default rule allows Garland to pay diminution fee: they have no reason to bring it up, Peevyhouses don’t know Default rule forces Garland to do cleanup: if that’s inefficient, they could bring it up during negotiations In this case, specific performance would serve as a penalty default Think about Peevyhouse in terms of penalty defaults
24
23 Remedy for breach could be written directly into contract But common law courts don’t always enforce remedy terms Liquidated damages – party-specified damages that reasonably approximate actual harm done by breach Penalty damages – damages greater than actual harm done Civil law courts are generally willing to enforce penalty damages But common law courts often do not Party-designed remedies
25
24 Peevyhouse v Garland Coal Peevyhouses only wanted farm strip-mined if it would be restored to original condition after Suppose coal extracted worth $70,000 Garland paid $25,000 for rights to mine it Restoration work would cost $30,000 Diminution of value was $300 So liquidated damages would be $300 Suppose Peevyhouses got $40,000 of disutility from land being left in poor condition Penalty Damages Coal worth $70,000 Garland to pay $25,000 Restoration would cost $30,000 Liquidated damages are $300 Peevyhouses value restoration at $40,000
26
25 Liquidated damages Peevyhouses SignDon’t Garland Coal Restore propertyDon’t, pay damages (25,000, 15,000)(-14,700, 44,700) (0, 0) If damages limited to liquidated damages… Peevyhouses shouldn’t believe restorative work will get done So Peevyhouses better off refusing to sign Even though mining and restoring Pareto-dominates Coal worth $70,000 Garland to pay $25,000 Restoration would cost $30,000 Liquidated damages are $300 Peevyhouses value restoration at $40,000
27
26 Penalty damages Peevyhouses SignDon’t Garland Coal Restore propertyDon’t, pay penalty (25,000, 15,000)(25,000, 5,000) (0, 0) Coal worth $70,000 Garland to pay $25,000 Restoration would cost $30,000 Liquidated damages are $300 Peevyhouses value restoration at $40,000 If penalty clauses in contracts were enforceable… Write contract with $40,000 penalty for leaving land unrestored Now restoration work would get done, so Peevyhouses willing to sign But if courts won’t enforce penalty damages, this won’t work
28
27 Whatever you can accomplish with penalty clause, you could also accomplish with performance bonus I agree to pay $200,000 to get house built, but I want you to pay a $50,000 penalty if it’s late Alternatively: I agree to pay $150,000 for house, plus a $50,000 performance bonus if it’s completed on time Either way, you get $150,000 if house is late, $200,000 if on time Courts generally enforce bonus clauses, so no problem! Penalty clauses
29
28 Whatever you can accomplish with penalty clause, you could also accomplish with performance bonus I agree to pay $200,000 to get house built, but I want you to pay a $50,000 penalty if it’s late Alternatively: I agree to pay $150,000 for house, plus a $50,000 performance bonus if it’s completed on time Either way, you get $150,000 if house is late, $200,000 if on time Courts generally enforce bonus clauses, so no problem! Similarly, Peevyhouse example Peevyhouses get $25,000 for mining rights, $40,000 penalty if land is not restored Equivalently, get $65,000 for mining rights, pay $40,000 bonus if restoration is completed But, if intent of contract is too transparent, still might not be enforced Penalty clauses
30
29 Effects of different remedies on… decision to perform or breach decision to sign or not sign investment in performing investment in reliance
31
30 Remedies and breach Expectation Damages 0-500,000250,000Total 150,000 You get -150,000-650,000100,000I get Costs High – Breach Costs High – Perform Costs Low – Perform Specific Performance 0-500,000250,000Total 400,000150,000 You get -400,000-650,000100,000I get Costs High – Renegotiate Costs High – Perform Costs Low – Perform Transaction costs low either leads to efficient breach, but seller prefers “weaker” remedy Transaction costs high S.P. leads to ineff. performance Plane worth $500,000 to you Price $350,000 Cost: either $250,000 or $1,000,000 –650,000 + ½ (500,000) 150,000 + ½ (500,000)
32
31 Opportunity cost damages, or reliance damages Inefficient breach when transaction costs are high Renegotiate contract to get efficient performance when transaction costs are low Like nuisance law: any remedy leads to efficient breach with low TC But only expectation damages do when TC are high Unfortunate contingency and fortunate contingency Remedies and breach
33
32 Specific Performance If costs stay low, I get $350,000 – $250,000 = $100,000 profit If costs rise, I take $400,000 loss Am I willing to sign this contract? Even expectation damages face this problem Expectation damages: costs stay low, same $100,000 profit Costs rise, $150,000 loss If probability of high costs is ½, I won’t sign contract Expectation damages lead to efficient breach, but may not lead to efficient signing Efficient signing
34
33 If reliance investments increase the damages you receive, we expect to get overreliance To get efficient reliance, need to exclude gains from reliance in calculation of expectation damages But then promisor’s liability < promisee’s benefit, leading to inefficient breach With low transaction costs, fix this through renegotiation But what about unobservable actions the promisor needs to take, to make breach less likely? Investment in performance Reliance – did example a while ago Skip
35
34 Some investment I can make to reduce likelihood that breach becomes necessary Suppose probability of breach is initially ½… but for every $27,726 I invest, I cut the probability in half Invest nothing probability of breach is 1/2 Invest $27,726 probability is 1/4 Invest $55,452 probability is 1/8 Any investment z probability is.5 * (.5) z / 27,726 Wrote it this way so p =.5 e – z / 40,000 Investment in performance
36
35 Suppose you’ve built a $90,000 hangar Increases value of performance by $180,000… …so value of performance is $150,000 + $180,000 = $330,000 Probability of breach =.5 e – z/40,000 Let D = damages I owe if I breach Same questions as before: What is efficient level of investment in performance? How much will I choose to invest in performance? Investment in performance (continuing with airplane example)
37
36 Suppose you’ve built a $90,000 hangar Increases value of performance by $180,000… …so value of performance is $150,000 + $180,000 = $330,000 Probability of breach =.5 e – z/40,000 Let D = damages I owe if I breach Same questions as before: What is efficient level of investment in performance? Enough to reduce probability of breach to 40,000/430,000 How much will I choose to invest in performance? Enough to reduce probability of breach to 40,000/(100,000 + D) Investment in performance (continuing with airplane example)
38
37 What is the efficient level of investment in performance? Enough so that p(z) = 40,000/430,000 What will promisor do under various rules for damages? Enough so that p(z) = 40,000/(100,000 + D) So if D = 330,000, efficient investment in performance D = 330,000 is promisee’s benefit, including reliance So expectation damages, with benefit of reliance, leads to efficient investment in performance If D < 330,000, too little investment in performance If D > 330,000, too much Makes sense – think about externalities What do these results mean?
39
38 Effects of different remedies on… decision to perform or breach decision to sign or not sign investment in performing investment in reliance
40
39 Paradox of compensation Inefficient breach Underinvestment in performance Efficient reliance Efficient breach Efficient investment in performance Over-reliance Expectation damages exclude benefit from reliance investments Expectation damages include benefit from reliance investments Is there a way to get efficient behavior by both parties? Skip
41
40 Have expectation damages include benefit from reliance… …but only up to the efficient level of reliance, not beyond That is, have damages reward efficient reliance investments, but not overreliance Promisee has no incentive to over-rely efficient reliance Promisor still bears full cost of breach efficient performance Problem: this requires court to calculate efficient level of reliance after the fact We already saw one possible solution
42
41 The problem: Damages promisor pays should include gain from reliance if we want to get efficient performance Damages promisee receives should exclude gain from reliance if we want to get efficient reliance Solution: make damages promisor pays different from damages promisee receives! How do we do this? Need a third party Another clever (but unrealistic) solution
43
42 You (promisee) and I (promisor) offer Bob this deal: If you rely and I breach, I pay Bob value of promise with reliance (airplane plus hangar) Bob pays you value of promise without reliance (airplane alone) Bob keeps the difference You receive damages without benefit from reliance; I pay damages with benefit from reliance “Anti-insurance”
44
43 You (promisee) and I (promisor) offer Bob this deal: If you rely and I breach, I pay Bob value of promise with reliance (airplane plus hangar) Bob pays you value of promise without reliance (airplane alone) Bob keeps the difference You receive damages without benefit from reliance; I pay damages with benefit from reliance Offer the deal to two people, make them pay up front for it “Anti-insurance”
45
44 Foreseeable reliance Include benefits reliance that promisor could have reasonably anticipated Reminder: what do courts actually do?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.