music: the beatles: magical mystery tour (1967)

Music: The Beatles: Magical Mystery Tour (1967)

Two Percolating Concerns

This Class is Fine BUT:

1.Does any of this really matter?2.I don’t know what I need to know for the exam

Two Percolating Concerns

1. Does any of this really matter?

– 9/11 & Lawyers– Calisthenics & Weasels

Two Percolating Concerns

2.I don’t know what I need to know for the exam

• Nothing in Format of Exam or What is Expected Will Be a Surprise When We Get There (I Promise)

• You Will Have Lots of Info on Technique– Getting to Maybe – Exam Technique Workshop– Old Exams

• Standard Exam Task (& Part of Mine): Apply Authorities Studied to New Hypothetical or “Fact Pattern”

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1Standard Exam Task: Apply Authorities Studied to New

Hypothetical or “Fact Pattern”•Assmt #1 : Structured Sequence of Arguments – Not everything you could say about the hypo– BUT Together good basis for an exam answer– Specific arguments for each party from

(1A) Facts of Shaw(1B) Specific language from Shaw(1C) Labor policy

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1Two Important Skills to Practice

1.Focusing on One Narrow Topic at a Time– Read Instructions Carefully & Just Do Your Topic:

• (1A) Facts of Shaw OR • (1B) Specific language fromShaw• (1C) Labor policy

– For Examples, Look at Shack Qs/Comments/Models– Doing more than you’re asked earns penalties not

extra credit• Cf. Responding to Judges in Oral Argument• Cf. Coverage in Associate Assignments at Law Firm

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1Two Important Skills to Practice

1.Focusing on One Narrow Topic at a Time2.Finding Best Arguments for Each Party– Generally in Structure of Assignment– Good Exam Answers are Schizophrenic

Conversations

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1

Legal Smeagols

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1Some General Points

1.Carefully Follow Formatting & Substantive Directions 2.Special Problems of Tie-Breaker Qs3.Working Together– Take Advantage– Be Cooperative

QUESTIONS?

LOGISTICS: CLASS #10• Full Section B Contact List Distributed via E-Mail

Tuesday. If you did not receive it or some of your info is wrong, contact Letty Tejeda.

• Next Set of Course Materials– Now on Course Page – A Few Pages of Additional Reading for Tomorrow– A Few DQs (Uranium) – We’ll cover 1st Tomorrow to set up next week’s work

LOGISTICS: CLASS #10• Graded Briefs– OXYGEN: • Mullett Brief due next Thurs (9/20) @ 9pm• Look at IM #2:

– Instructions for all Written Work – Instructions for Written Briefs

• E-Mail me if Qs

– RADIUM: • I’m Starting Work on Shaw Briefs (Goal = Mon 9/24)• Meanwhile can look at comments/models in Info Memo #3

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumCan you frame a single rule that makes sense of the results in Pierson, Liesner, and Shaw?

Why is this a useful exercise?•Explain unreconciled cases•In court or legal memo•Ideally reconciles cases AND shows that your side wins

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumSTUDENT #1: Property rights to a wild animal occur when a pursuer, [ii] who

continues to pursue the animal and has no intent of releasing him back into the

wild, [i] has substantially rid the animal of his natural liberty as to render escape

highly unlikely under normal circumstances.

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumProperty rights to a wild animal occur

when a pursuer … A pursuer acquires property rights to a

wild animal when the pursuer…

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer…

[i] has substantially rid the animal of his natural liberty as to render escape highly

unlikely under normal circumstances.

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer… [i]

(a)has substantially rid the animal of his natural liberty

Need both (a) & (b)? (b) as to render escape highly unlikely (c) under normal circumstances.

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer… [i]

(a)has rendered escape highly unlikely (b) under normal circumstances. (Very clever idea)

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer [i] has rendered escape highly unlikely under normal circumstances; and [ii]

(a) continues to pursue the animal and (b) has no intent of releasing

him back into the wild,

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer [i] has rendered escape highly unlikely under normal circumstances; and [ii]

(a)continues to pursue the animal (do you want to require for traps/nets)(b) has no intent of releasing him back into the wild

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer [i] has rendered escape highly unlikely under normal circumstances; and [ii]

(a)continues to pursue the animal (b) has no intent of releasing him [it] back into the wild (do you want test of pure intent w/o actions?)

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA pursuer acquires property rights to a wild animal

when the pursuer [i] has rendered escape highly unlikely under normal circumstances; and [ii]

continues to pursue the animal or to otherwise show he has no intent of releasing it.

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumSTUDENT #2:

A wild animal is deemed property of a person pursuing it if he …

A person is deemed the proprietor of a wild animal if he …

1.through his actions made escape of the animal highly unlikely and 2.through his actions has substantially decreased the likelihood of escape since the outset of the pursuit.

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumSTUDENT #2:

A wild animal is deemed property of a person pursuing it if he …

A person is deemed the proprietor of a wild animal if he …

1.through his actions made escape of the animal highly unlikely and

2.through his actions has substantially decreased the likelihood of escape since the outset of the pursuit.

Beware of Pronouns!!!

STATE v. SHAW DQ27: UraniumA person is deemed the proprietor of [to have

property rights in] a wild animal if he …1.through his actions made escape of the animal highly unlikely and

2.through his actions has substantially decreased the likelihood of escape since the outset of the pursuit. (interesting idea, but not clear would lead to Pierson result)

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: Uranium

DQ28 = Exercise to Set Up Demsetz Reading

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: UraniumAssume 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? •Which of these effects is Thomas likely to take into account when deciding whether to take the fish?

EXTERNALITIES• Costs or benefits external to a decision-

making process–Must be with reference to particular decision–Helpful to start by identifying decision-maker

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: Uranium

Thomas Likely to Consider

• Own Exertions/Cost of Equipment, etc.

• Benefits to Dependents• Benefits to Likely

Purchasers

Likely Externalities• Costs to Net-Owners,

Their Dependents, Their Purchasers

• Costs to Net Manufacturers

• Effect on Ecosystem (note might be benefits if “theft” discourages use of big nets)

EXTERNALITIES• Costs or benefits external to a decision-

making process–Must be with reference to particular decision–Helpful to start by identifying decision-maker

• Examples from outside this problem?

EXTERNALITIES• Costs or benefits external to a decision-making

process– Must be with 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

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: UraniumIf 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.

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: UraniumWhat obstacles stand in the way of the parties entering contract where T promises not to take fish from nets?

Assume cost to net-owner is $500/wk & benefit to Thomas is $300/wk.

Assume One-on-One Negotiation.

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: Uranium

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

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: UraniumWhat obstacles stand in the way of the parties entering contract where T promises not to take fish from nets?

Assume cost to net-owner is $500/wk & benefit to Thomas is $300/wk.

Assume Multi-Party Negotiation (multiple net-owners; multiple fish-

takers).

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: UraniumAdditional Costs of Multi-Party Negotiation

•Free-Riding•Holdouts•Organization/Management Costs

STATE v. SHAW DQ28: Uranium

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

Transaction Costs• Costs of Reaching Agreements• Can Prevent Parties from

Reaching Bargains that are “Efficient” (i.e., Would Make Everyone Better Off)

DEMSETZ ARTICLE

DEMSETZ ARTICLE DQ29: RADIUM

“In the world of Robinson Crusoe property rights play no role.”

•Who is Robinson Crusoe?

•What does quote mean?

•Why does Demsetz believe this to be true?

INTERNALIZINGEXTERNALITIES

Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take External Costs or

Benefits Into Account

INTERNALIZINGEXTERNALITIES

Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take External

Costs or Benefits Into Account• Imposed from Outside; Generally Not Done

by Decision-Maker

INTERNALIZINGEXTERNALITIES

Changing Rules, Laws or Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take External

Costs or Benefits Into Account• Imposed from Outside; Generally Not Done

by Decision-Maker• Beneficial Because Means Price of Activities

Will Reflect Real Costs (e.g., pollution costs)

DEMSETZ ARTICLE DQ30: RADIUM

Examples of internalizing externalities from outside the

reading?

INTERNALIZINGEXTERNALITIES

Changing Rules, Laws, Circumstances to Force Decision-Maker to Take External Costs or

Benefits Into Account; Can Do Several Ways:• Require Payment of Damages• Criminalize Activity• Private Negotiation (Bribes)

DEMSETZ ARTICLE DQ31: RADIUM

Why does the author believe that new property rights tend to arise from “the

emergence of new or different beneficial and harmful effects”? (p.29)

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become

larger than the cost of internalization.”

DEMSETZ FIRST THESISDQ32: RADIUM

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become

larger than the cost of internalization.”What are “gains” of internalization?

DEMSETZ FIRST THESISDQ32: RADIUM

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become

larger than the cost of internalization.”What are “costs” of internalization?

DEMSETZ FIRST THESISDQ32: RADIUM

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost

of internalization.” What are “costs”? •costs of bargaining privately•costs of collectively creating new rules (can be very expensive)• multi-party negotiation• legislation

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become

larger than the cost of internalization.”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.” If cost of externalities > cost of change change in rule• Rough Approximation (Not Precise Math)

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than

the cost of internalization.” If cost of externalities > cost of change change in rule• Rough Approximation (Not Precise Math)• Resulting Change in Rule Unpredictable

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS

New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost of internalization.” If cost of externalities > cost of

change change in rule

•Often Results from Social/Cultural Change New Social Habits Scarcity New Science/Technology

Scarcity or Better Monitoring

DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS: Basic Analysis

• Identify decision 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: Basic Analysis: Shaw v. State• Identify decision 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