Section 1

Preview this deck

unconscionability

Front

Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Active users

0

All-time users

0

Favorites

0

Last updated

4 years ago

Date created

Mar 1, 2020

Cards (103)

Section 1

(50 cards)

unconscionability

Front

a defense against a contract when holding the participants to the terms would be very unfair to one side - the value of the consideration to the aggrieved would be disproportionately low

Back

specific performance cont..

Front

- offers potential for fewer lawsuits - eliminates the cost of estimating damages - preserves the rational parties own valuations - captures the intentions/market valuations of parties who made the agreement

Back

covenant

Front

a private agreement that limits the way in which an entitlement to property can be used - could be used to preserve the way a certain property looks or functions

Back

property rule - injunction

Front

forces the least cost avoider to cease rights to property

Back

trespass

Front

the invasion of someone else's property by entering without the owner's consent

Back

holdouts

Front

parties that impede the outcome of a transaction by waiting for a better offer from the purchasers

Back

intellectual property

Front

intangible property, inventions protected by copyright such as texts, patents, trademarks

Back

immaterial breaches of contract

Front

non-performance may have little or no bearing on the goals of the parties and are considered minor breaches - one party would have substantially performed their duties

Back

nuisance

Front

the use of property in a way that causes damage or annoyance to others without physical invasion - divided into two private nuisance and public nuisance

Back

public nuisance

Front

involves interference with the public at large

Back

microeconomics

Front

a study of individuals, households and firms

Back

performance excuses

Front

excuses for incorrectly assessing future events - it may be inefficient or unfair if one side is allowed to rescind

Back

liability rule - monetary damages

Front

forces the least cost avoider to pay monetary damages

Back

types of damages for contact breach 4

Front

1. expectation damages 2. reliance damages 3. restitution 4. liquidation damages

Back

Practical Coasean View

Front

externality problem is a joint problem which would not exist without both parties - for this reason, the law should assign entitlements such that the least cost avoider pays for the externality

Back

inalienability rule

Front

rights that cannot be transferred - through statutes, governments often pass legislation prohibiting the allocation or use of private property in the interest of social welfare - hence are governments the ultimate owners of all entitlements

Back

reliance damages

Front

refers to the cost a plaintiff incurs as a result of relying on a broken promise

Back

private nuisance law

Front

property rights restricted - enhancing the welfare of private property owners

Back

contract

Front

a legally binding agreement between parties about a future transfer of an entitlement in exchange for another entitlement - must include an offer, acceptance and consideration

Back

macroeconomics

Front

study of the economy as a whole

Back

free riders

Front

use public goods at no cost to themselves

Back

neoclassical economic theory

Front

allocation of entitlements will be efficient because the world is a perfect place - markets are perfectly competitive - buyers, sellers act rationally - no control over price - have complete information - firms enter and leave market with ease - zero transaction costs

Back

problem of scarcity

Front

not able to curtail an individuals want with scare resources

Back

mistake - formation defense

Front

unilateral mistake - mean failing to reward those who had acquired costly information

Back

material breach of contract

Front

allow the aggrieved party to ask for performance and/or substantial damages or nullification of the contract

Back

strict liability

Front

one party to a dispute is deemed liable regardless as long as they are responsible for the situation involving the damage they are liable - product damage, applies to extraordinary dangerous activities like the transportation of explosives

Back

incompetence/incapacity - formation defense

Front

disqualifies a person from making a contract since they may not understand what they are agreeing to

Back

restitution damages

Front

at times - benefits are sometimes conferred on the breaching party who has failed to perform their promise in the contract - in such cases, the court might ask for the return of the benefit to prevent the enrichment - returning a purchasers deposit

Back

specific performance

Front

an order to comply with the terms of a contract so that transactions for mutual gains can be completed - an equitable remedy which theoretically can be efficient and can be efficient

Back

formation defenses - 5

Front

1. duress 2. mistake 3. incompetence/incapacity 4. fraud 5. unconscionability

Back

negligence

Front

applied to dispute resolution, liability is determined based up fault - party liable if they did not exercise enough care

Back

monetary damages

Front

most cases monetary damages are awarded to solve breach of contracts - to leave the injured in the same position had the terms of the contract been completed

Back

expectation damages

Front

the most obvious form of damages when a contract is breached - what one should reasonably expected to receive under the terms of the contact

Back

remedy for violations of property rights - 2

Front

1. a property rule - injunction 2. a liability rule - monetary damages

Back

personal property

Front

movable

Back

tragedy of the commons

Front

a valuable resource with no rights and open access will attract users to the point where the resource becomes depleted and is of no use to society - an inefficient outcome

Back

Kaldor - hicks efficiency

Front

winners win more than losers lose

Back

expropriation/eminent domain

Front

refer to the regulatory takings of private land by the government for public use with or without the consent of the property owner - taking must have social welfare implications and property owners must receive just compensation

Back

efficient breach

Front

rationale is that the opportunity to employ resources to their optimal use may require aborting the contract, in which case there are net gains to be realized from an efficient breach of contract

Back

fraud - formation defense

Front

one party gains an unfair or dishonest advantage as a result of their actions or lack thereof

Back

duress - formation defense

Front

one party agrees without adequate consideration since their decision was made under dire circumstances - forced to enter contract against their will

Back

Pareto efficiency

Front

no way to make one person better off without making another worse off

Back

real property

Front

non-movables such as houses, land, building

Back

Pigou's Theory of Welfare

Front

advocated taxes in the amount of the hidden cost to society on the party causing the negative externality - reducing the equilibrium ... subsidy for positive externalities - raising the equilibrium

Back

zoning

Front

refer to laws setting limits on how people can use their property - all levels of governments use zoning laws to preserve areas, shape development or the look of the community

Back

private nuisance

Front

refers to impediments to an individual's use or enjoyment of land

Back

public nuisance law

Front

property rights restricted - enhancing the welfare of public, community or country - improving social welfare

Back

liquidation damages

Front

an amount agreed upon by the parties in contractual relations to be paid in the event of a breach - if very high, may cause parties to perform

Back

acceptable reasons to contract breach 2

Front

1. formation defenses 2. performance defenses

Back

allocation efficiency

Front

the distribution of output or entitlements among residents that yields the highest level of social welfare

Back

Section 2

(50 cards)

tort

Front

a violation of a non-contractual duty imposed by law in relation to the property rights of others - a civil wrong

Back

Gary Becker's economic model of crime

Front

criminals behave rationally, when benefit outweighs costs crime is committed - could reduce crime if benefits lowered or costs increased - administering programs cost society however

Back

what are some common environmental problems

Front

air and water pollution - smog, greenhouse gases, production processes and forest fires - create respiratory and pulmonary infections as well as lung cancer water pollution is additional material in water affecting it's quality - sewage, industrial waste, oil spills, acid rain, marine dumping, radioactive waste, leakages from underground storage, global warming and fertilizer runoff, bacteria and sediments that obstruct water flow

Back

criminal procedures

Front

In many jurisdictions, individuals charged with major crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They are entitled to enter a plea and to a defence. There is no retroactive application of law. The rules are determined beforehand, so no legal consequences exist for acts done prior to laws taking effect.

Back

what is comparative advantage

Front

determines which goods a country specializes in. This advantage can arise, according to Heckscher-Ohlin, by having relative abundance of a factor of production. It in turn allows countries to produce at relatively cheaper prices. Trade will then take place and gains are realized

Back

what are some other common environmental problems

Front

deforestation and natural disaster deforestation - clearing of land for agriculture, logging or firewood. Deforestation has been blamed for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, since trees consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Without their consumption of gases like carbon dioxide, global warming increases. natural disaster - the impact which natural occurrences like floods, hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes can have on the environment. They require resources in efforts of risk management and rehabilitation.

Back

Sir William Blackstone

Front

an English jurist who referred to the right of an individual to a jury trial as the "the principal bulwark of our liberties". - robbery of Heathrow depot without a jury

Back

environmental degradation

Front

the decline in the natural environment's ability to sustain life as a result of pollution, inefficient resource use and natural disasters

Back

Pareto improvement

Front

A reallocation that improves at least one person without making anyone worse off

Back

What is the solution to the costs of incariration

Front

imprisonment can create costs which exceed the benefits, and that it does little to reduce crime. Within reason, efficiency requires an examination of the costs and benefits of alternative penalties such as fines/volunteer work for lower level crimes

Back

adverse selection

Front

Those representing a high risk seek insurance, causing premiums to rise for everyone. When premiums reach the point where it is inefficient for those representing a low risk to seek insurance, we are left with a large percentage of high risk individuals insured. The likelihood of accidents and claims increases again.

Back

How many former prisoners return to crime upon release?

Front

6 out of 10

Back

how does environmental degradation effect the economy

Front

can cause a depletion of the factors of production and the natural environment which gives rise to comparative advantage and gains from trade. Not only will this have an impact on our potential to earn foreign exchange, but it also threatens the domestic supply of the products which depend on the particular resource

Back

environmental protection

Front

the efforts we make to preserve natural resources and to prevent or reverse the destruction of the natural environment over time

Back

neighbor test

Front

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.

Back

what are the limitations of cost benefit analysis and the level of environmental protection

Front

it is difficult to predict the benefits that could be realized from protecting the environment of degradation - eg...how many fewer individuals would die from cancer related deaths by reducing the levels of arsenic in drinking water the reason is that the benefits that result occur over time and it is very difficult to measure the results

Back

learned hand formula

Front

optimal level of precaution

Back

costs of the death penalty

Front

10 times more than imprisonment - length of time to finalize the punishment - bogs down the prisons, expensive lawyers

Back

jury duty

Front

used in most criminal cases - impartial jury of the defendant's peers to convict or exonerate

Back

efficient tort system

Front

according to Guido Calabresi, minimizing the sum of three types of costs: 1.Costs of precaution (secondary) 2.Costs of the tort (primary) 3.Costs of administering the tort system (tertiary)

Back

comparative negligence

Front

costs are allocated to the parties in accordance with their proportion of responsibility for the damage that has occurred

Back

how are economics and the environment related

Front

When we allocate scarce resources in an efficient manner to satisfy unlimited wants, we do so given existing environmental conditions which facilitate production and exchange. Environmental destruction adds to the economic problem in that it reduces our ability to produce goods and services over time. It can happen through direct depletion of resources by inefficient use (like over-fishing and deforestation), by polluting the environment (releasing harmful substances that alter the state of the land, air and water we require), or by inefficiency in failing to protect resources from natural disasters. The above paragraph clearly implies that environmental degradation can reduce potential GDP and hamper economic growth.

Back

last clear chance

Front

whose purpose is to control inefficient actions. If the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, they are liable and the plaintiff will recover damages - stance against contributory negligence

Back

disadvantages of strict liability

Front

- deter manufacture of goods - disincentive for plaintiffs to take precautions, asymmetrical information may never level know care plaintiffs took, reducing the likelihood of comparative or contributory negligence - moreover, the least cost avoider and deep pocket arguments can lead to cost spreading

Back

crime may be optimal in society???

Front

due to the substantial costs of administering programs to make it easier to catch criminals - the cost in relation to the benefit to society may not be worth the cost

Back

unintentional tort

Front

unintentional harm to the entitlements of others

Back

moral hazard

Front

This is an inefficient situation whereby those who have purchased insurance act carelessly because even if they are liable the insurance company pays. This increases the likelihood of accidents and tort claims.

Back

what is the worldwide consensus regarding environmental destruction?

Front

will impose costs on future generations, and that action is required today to preserve resources and to prevent or reverse the destruction of the natural environment over time.

Back

1 in 100 adult Americans

Front

in jail or in prison - costing $50 billion/yr

Back

how much money was spent on wild life related recreation in US

Front

$108b in 2001

Back

strict liability efficiency

Front

save time and reduce the court costs of determining liability through negligence. Parties may also be inclined to settle out of court - saving litigation costs when liability is predetermined. Fewer trials reduce the costs of administering the tort system. Moreover, strict liability places the onus on manufacturers to develop safer products which would result in fewer accidents and hence fewer claims.

Back

jury summons

Front

call to jury duty - costly and individuals are shrieking their obligation - in Ontario, no pay for first 10 days and only $50 for the next 39 days

Back

intentional tort

Front

those where the "tortfeasor" (the person committing a tort) intentionally commits a wrongful act. There is little ambiguity surrounding intentional tort. The overwhelming view, on the basis of fairness as well as efficiency, is that liability should rest with those who committed the harm.

Back

negligence 2

Front

the standard used to determine liability in many cases of unintentional tort, based on a test of reasonableness. The more unreasonable the act, the higher the likelihood of liability

Back

contributory negligence

Front

where a defendant is relieved of the liability when the plaintiff materially contributed to their own harm, i.e., the plaintiff's actions were unreasonable or negligent.

Back

alcohol prohibition 1920s

Front

Failure of prohibition meant that its costs outweighed its benefits. From an economic perspective, there was a market for alcohol and profit to be made from its sale - in this regard prohibition cost us social welfare. Additional costs include the loss of a major source of tax revenue from a good with inelastic demand, a strain on government spending - it costs society to police and punish crime, and some users switched to more dangerous drugs like marijuana and cocaine. As for the benefits of prohibition, "no measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism

Back

beyond a reasonable doubt

Front

any stretch of the imagination

Back

deterrents to moral hazard and adverse selection

Front

the use of deductibles by insurance companies, mandatory insurance, alternative compensation schemes and no-fault insurance, have evolved over time.

Back

gross negligence (extremely unreasonable)

Front

a severe threat to social welfare, the price perpetrators pay should be higher. Hence, we reserve punitive damages as punishment for such actions. But in order for the price you pay to be appropriate, liability must be determined. Strict liability is a way of ensuring that costs rest where they belong - internalization of costs.

Back

what would be our goal if we are to efficiently protect the enviroment

Front

minimizing the costs of the action (that we concede is necessary) has to be the objective of society if we are to attempt to achieve efficiency - such costs include compliance costs and monitoring costs

Back

Criminal offences

Front

offences committed against society and are punishable by law. They are acts - or lack of action - contrary to law

Back

Rylands v. Fletcher

Front

"We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is primâ facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape

Back

Rylands v. Fletcher

Front

Rylands was the occupier of a mine and Fletcher the owner of a mill who constructed a reservoir on another piece of property. After some shafts under the reservoir broke, the water flooded Rylands' mine. Fletcher had not taken part in the construction of the reservoir and did not seem to be aware of the shafts. The trial court ruled in favour of the defendant, the mill owner Fletcher. The Appeals Court reversed and concluded that the plaintiffs should recover damages. They imposed strict liability on Fletcher. Justice Blackburn of the Appeals Court said

Back

cost of keeping a man in prison

Front

$110k per yr

Back

Learned Hand Formula

Front

If: P = probability of injury; L = amount of injury; B = burden of precaution, then the defendant is liable if B < P*L. This relationship is known as the Hand Formula. The idea is that the cost of precaution in B is inadequate or unreasonable if PL, the expected damage/benefit, is greater than B. For example, if there is a 20% chance of an accident in which you could cause $10 in harm, you should not spend less than (PL = 0.2$10 = $2) to safeguard against the damage. The optimal amount of precaution is found where B = PL.

Back

what are statutes

Front

Statutes are often enacted to address issues in previous rulings in order to provide more clarity, to override a precedent found in common law, or simply as a matter of prudence (e.g., in matters involving environmental preservation) in the interest of social welfare. In turn, judges can strictly apply statutes.

Back

ultra hazardous activity

Front

Strict liability applied to ultra-hazardous activity refers to acts that are so inherently dangerous that those responsible for the activity are held strictly liable for any resulting injuries. However, defendants who facilitate the danger are often required to pay resulting damages.

Back

simple negligence

Front

holds the defendants responsible for the tort if their actions were unreasonable under the circumstances, i.e., they did not exercise the care that would ordinarily be expected

Back

What does Gary Becker propose for crime?

Front

fines are superior to imprisonment since they are cheaper to society- not for more serious crimes

Back

what are the roles of Agencies, boards or tribunals in relation to statutes

Front

are created to enforce the statutes - in effect they interpret the laws.

Back

Section 3

(3 cards)

what are some of the ways in which we are/can do to reduce pollution, improper use of resources or natural disasters

Front

Back

what are the 3 broad categories of environmental degradation

Front

pollution, improper use of resource, natural disasters

Back

#### ended at mid Regulation, Cost Minimization module 12

Front

Back