Author:
Carbonara Emanuela,Parisi Francesco,von Wangenheim Georg
Abstract
AbstractIn the past couple of decades, scholars have predominantly employed rent-seeking models to analyze litigation problems. In this paper, we build on the existing literature to show how alternative fee-shifting arrangements (e.g., the American rule and English rule with limited fee-shifting) affect parties’ litigation expenditures and their decisions to litigate. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, we discover that, when fee shifting is limited, the English rule presents some interrelated advantages over the American rule, including the reduction of litigation rates and the possible reduction of expected litigation expenditures. Our results unveil a hidden virtue of limited fee shifting, showing that an increase in such limit may lead to a desirable sorting of socially valuable litigation.
Subject
Law,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference34 articles.
1. A Note on Private Versus Social Incentives to Sue in a Costly Legal System;Menell;Journal of Legal Studies,1983
2. Judicial Detection Skill and Contractual Compliance;Kirstein;International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier,1997
3. Private Versus Social Costs in Bringing Suits;Kaplow;Journal of Legal Studies,1986
4. Returns to Effort in Rent-Seeking Games;Dari-Mattiacci;Public Choice 12–37.,2014
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献