music: tchaikovsky symphony #4 (1880) berlin philharmonic (2003) conductor: von karajan §b lunch...

MUSIC: Tchaikovsky Symphony #4 (1880)Berlin Philharmonic (2003)Conductor: Von Karajan

§B Lunch Wed Sep 17Meet on Bricks @ 12:15

Centurion * P.ComparatoFernandez * Haverman

Jackson* Maddox Teijelo

§B Lunch Thu Sep 18Meet on Bricks @ 11:55

Aldahan * GomezGonzalez * Kropkof

Partin * Spain * Stafford

DEMSETZ ARTICLE

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS

Over Time, Process Described in 1st Thesis Leads to More and

Stronger Private Property Rights

Why? Demsetz: Private Property More Efficient

Than Communal Property

DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS: DQ1.38

Private Property More Efficient Than Communal Property (Results in Fewer Externalities)

1.Members of community will have trouble negotiating among themselves to achieve optimal level of resource use.



1.Members of community will have trouble negotiating to achieve optimal level of resource use. • Claim: Private Os more likely to manage resource in way

to maximize long term benefits.• In communal or state, no individual reaps benefits of

good management, so have to do difficult group negotiation to get everyone to agree to steps needed to achieve optimum.



2. The members of the community will have trouble negotiating with other communities or outsiders: • to prevent interference with community’s

rights • to achieve useful bargains



2.The members of the community will have trouble negotiating with other communities or outsiders: • Standard problems of group bargaining • Plus difficulty of figuring out who to bargain with (Who

do I talk to if I want to buy up all the oxygen or to prevent some people from overusing oxygen?)

DEMSETZ SECOND THESISDQ1.39 URANIUM

Demsetz: Private Property More Efficient Than Communal Property

In your experience, what ways do communities have of preventing anti-community behavior aside from bargaining or paying off the anti-

social community members?


Demsetz: Private Property More Efficient Than Communal Property

Reasons to Question Claim•May understate effectiveness of social sanctions/ ostracism/self-help as ways for communities to regulate behavior w/o negotiation. E.g., • Law school sections• Fast food containers• NFL & Twitterverse


Private Property More Efficient Than Communal Property (Reasons to Q Claim)

•May understate effectiveness of social sanctions

•Not always clear that private property yields better management• Individuals can be irrationally wasteful or may

sacrifice long term value for short term gains• Sometimes concerned community (e.g., re children or

future generations) can do better job planning for future


Private Property More Efficient Than Communal Property (Reasons to Q Claim)

•May understate effectiveness of social sanctions•Not clear private property yields better management

•If bargaining among community is so difficult, how do private property systems get created?• Shows some group negotiation possible• Although Demsetz would say overcoming transaction

costs hard so only occurs if perceived costs of status quo very high


Over Time, Process Described in 1st Thesis Leads to More and More

Private PropertyAssuming Private Property

Results in Fewer Externalities …



Private Property• If Externalities High Change in Rule



Private Property• If Externalities High Change in Rule • Rule Changes Unpredictable




– If to Private Property, Low Externalities = Stable




– If to Private Property, Low Externalities = Stable– If not, Higher Externalities More Change

DEMSETZ: WHAT TO TAKE AWAY

•Externalities Important

• Very Commonly Referenced Concept• Want Decision-Makers to Consider Real Costs


•Externalities Important

•1st Thesis:• Useful Description of How Changes in Society Can

Create Changes in Property Rights• Can also use to argue change is needed b/c of

high externalities


•Externalities Important•Useful Description of a Way Changes in Society Create Changes in Property Rights

•Arguments re Advantages of Private Property (or of Stronger Private Property Rights)


ALSO (though we didn’t spend time on):

1st para.: Description of What Property Is (useful here & for Property class)

•Expectations re Rights to Act•Protection from Others’ Interference•Construct of Particular Society/Culture


What Counts as Property = Construct of Particular Society/Culture

LOGISTICS: CLASS #14

• RADIUM: RADIUM: Shaw Shaw Briefs Available for Pick-Up Briefs Available for Pick-Up from Ms. Sutton (One Packet per Team)from Ms. Sutton (One Packet per Team)

• KRYPTON: Albers Brief Due Sun 9/21 @ 9pm• ALL: Assignment #1 Due Sun 9/21 @ 2pm• References to Earlier Cases OK Only for Labor Sub-

Assignment (but not Necessary)

Questions on Assignments?

Manning v. Mitcherson

IN-CLASS CASE BRIEF:IN-CLASS CASE BRIEF:KRYPTONKRYPTON

Manning v. Mitcherson:

BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE: •Mitcherson … ?•sued Manning, … •[theory of case]•[remedy requested]


BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE:

•Mitcherson, original owner (OO) of escaped canary•sued Manning, … ?•[theory of case]•[remedy requested]


BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE: •Mitcherson, OO of escaped canary

•sued Manning, who was given the bird by its finder,•[theory of case]?•[remedy requested]


BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE: •Mitcherson, OO of escaped canary sued Manning, who was given the bird by finder,•under a “possessory warrant” = summary action for return of personal property


BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE: •Mitcherson, OO of escaped canary sued Manning, who was given the bird by finder,

•under a possessory warrant– not “conversion” b/c not asking for $$– not crazy to say “replevin” but poss. warr.

appears to be its own cause of action in Ga.

•[remedy requested]?


BRIEF: KRYPTONSTATEMENT OF THE CASE: •Mitcherson, OO of escaped canary sued Manning, who was given the bird by finder, under a possessory warrant …• For return of the bird. (Sweet!!)


BRIEF: KRYPTONPROCEDURAL POSTURE: •After a trial, the magistrate awarded possession to the Plaintiff.

Need to include “After a trial” to clarify not decided:• on pleadings (like Pierson)• on Directed Verdict (like Liesner & Shaw)


BRIEF: KRYPTONPROCEDURAL POSTURE: •After a trial, the magistrate awarded possession to the Plaintiff. •Defendant brought a writ of certiorari to Superior Court, which affirmed [by dismissing the writ]. •Defendant “excepted” [appealed].

ISSUE (Procedural Part)?


BRIEF: KRYPTONISSUE (Procedural Part): Did the magistrate err in awarding possession

of the canary to the original owner … ORDid the Superior Court err by affirming the

judgment of the magistrate awarding possession of the canary to the original owner

ISSUE (Substantive Part)?


BRIEF: KRYPTONISSUE (Substantive Part): Did the magistrate err in awarding possession

of the canary to the original owner because an OO loses property rights to an escaping animal

where [facts].

Manning v. Mitcherson:BRIEF: KRYPTON

ISSUE NARROW HOLDINGDid the magistrate err in awarding possession of the canary to the original owner because an OO loses property rights to an escaping animal where [facts].

The magistrate didn’t err in awarding possession of the canary to the original owner because an OO retains property rights to an escaping animal where [facts].

We’ll Insert List of Facts from p. 40 (2d Paragraph) + Distinctive Crest

Manning v. Mitcherson:FACTS & HOLDING :

KRYPTONThe original owner retains property rights in an escaped [canarycanary] …

[that had distinctive crest] [that responded to its name] [that had escaped and returned once before] [that had been owned for two years][that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]

NARROWING/BROADENING HOLDINGS

• Narrowest Version of Holding Essentially Includes All Facts of Present Case

• Broader Versions Address More Future Cases


• Narrowest Version of Holding Essentially Includes All Facts of Present Case

• Broader Versions Address More Future Cases

• Broaden Holding by (either or both of):– Making References to Some Facts More General– Eliminating Some Facts


• Narrowest Version Essentially Includes All Facts of Case• Broad Versions Address More Future

Cases

• Different Versions of Broad Holdings – Play With to See What Case Might Stand For

Going Forward– Remember Must be Consistent with Result &

Language of Case

Manning v. Mitcherson:FACTS & HOLDING :

KRYPTONThe original owner retains property rights in an escaped [canarycanary] [animal animal ferae ferae naturaenaturae]

[that had distinctive crest] [that responded to its name] [that had escaped and returned once before] [that had been owned for two years][that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]

Manning v. Mitcherson

DQ1.46 (Relevant DQ1.46 (Relevant Factors):Factors):OXYGENOXYGEN

Manning v. Mitcherson: DQ1.46

Relevant Factors (OXYGEN)We’ll discuss the possible significance of each fact, including…

How Might You Broaden a Particular Fact to a More General Factor? (to imagine what might be part of broader versions of holding)

Why Might that Factor Matter in Determining Rights between OO and Finder? (to clarify purpose/relevance)

How Well Does the Particular Fact Further the Purposes of Considering the General Factor ? (to assess the relative importance of the fact and prepare to compare it to facts of future cases/problems)


Relevant Factors (OXYGEN)The original owner retains property rights in an

escaped animal ferae naturae …

• that had distinctive crest … • Possible Significance?– Possible more general factor?– Why might matter to rights of OO/F?


Relevant Factors (OXYGEN)Possible Significance of …

that had distinctive crest marked• May help identify animal• May provide notice to F of prior claim

How well does crest here do these things?

Manning v. Mitcherson:FACTS & HOLDING

The original owner retains property rights in an escaped [canary] [animal ferae naturae]

[that had distinctive crest] [that was marked] [that responded to its name] [that had escaped and returned once before] [that had been owned for two years][that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]




• that responded to its name• that had escaped and returned once before• Possible Significance?– Possible more general factor? – Why might matter to rights of OO/F?



responded to name + Prior escape/return tamed or bonded

• Shows labor by OO• May want to protect emotional connection

How well does responding to name do these things here?



responded to name + Prior escape/return tamed or bonded

• Shows labor by OO• May want to protect emotional connection

How well does prior escape/return do these things here?


The original owner retains property rights in an escaped [canarycanary] [animal ferae naturaeanimal ferae naturae]

[that had distinctive crest] [that was marked] [that had escaped and returned once before] + [that responded to its name] [that was tamed][that had been owned for two years][that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]




Note Three Different Measures of Time [that had been owned for two years][that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]



• that had been owned for two years – Taming/Bonding again– Maybe stronger than name or escape/return: • More labor by OO (2 years maintenance)• Emotional connection probably strong



[that had distinctive crest] [that was marked] [that had escaped and returned once before] + [that

responded to its name] + [that had been owned for two years] [that was tamed & emotionally bonded to OO]

[that had been missing for only five days][that OO located day after it was found]




• that had been missing for only five days• that OO located day after it was found• Possible Significance?– Possible more general factor? –Why might matter to rights of OO/F?



missing only five days/OO located day after found Gone very short time

• Shows pursuit/interest by OO• Little time for F to invest or bond

How well does time here show these things?



[that had distinctive crest] [that was marked] [prior escape/return] + [responded to name] + [owned for two years]

[that was tamed & emotionally bonded to OO]

[that had been missing for only five days] + [that OO located day after it was found] [that had been gone for a short time]

Manning v. Mitcherson:VERSIONS OF HOLDING

(1) The original owner retains property rights in an escaped bird that had escaped and returned before, is distinctively marked, had been found only a short time after it escaped, and was located by the owner a short time after being found.


(2) The original owner retains property rights in an escaped animal ferae naturae that is tamed and distinctively marked.


(3) The original owner retains property rights in an escaped animal ferae naturae where the OO is emotionally bonded to the animal and locates the animal after it only is gone for a short time.

Manning v. Mitcherson:MANY VERSIONS OF

HOLDING• Exact scope of Manning holding necessarily

unclear until Ga. Supreme Court clarifies• Use other language from case to help determine

best alternatives (DQ1.45 & 1.47)• Use squirrel hypothetical to see how different

versions might accomplish different results (DQ1.48)

QUESTIONS ON FACTORS & HOLDING?

music: tchaikovsky symphony #4 (1880) berlin philharmonic (2003) conductor: von karajan §b lunch...

Documents

communal property demsetz

private property systems

communal property results

communal property reasons

private os

antisocial community

anticommunity behavior

fewer externalitiesthe