• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Taking the Analysis of Security Seriously

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Taking_the_Analysis_of_Securit ...
    Size:
    234.7Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Schwartz, Alan
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/281
    Abstract
    PROFESSORS Harris and Mooney ("H & M") argue that the new Article 9 should further advance the goals of the current statute-to make security easier to take and to increase its scope. H & M defend this position against attacks from Law and Economics analysts and other scholars; both sets of critics, H & M claim, want to increase the costs associated with secured credit or otherwise to restrict its use. H & M's article primarily attempts to refute the Law and Economics claims; it cites few other scholars and only discusses the economic arguments in detail. This Commentary thus focuses on the dispute that H & M have with Law and Economics. H & M's support for Article 9 has both a positive and a normative aspect. The former argues first that the debate over the efficiency of secured debt is inconclusive as a matter of theory; the granting of security sometimes creates net social benefits and sometimes does not. H & M go on to claim that whether the former effect usually occurs "is an empirical question that cannot be answered with any certainty using existing information." The law nevertheless should facilitate the issuance of secured debt because normative grounds exist to allocate the burden of proof in the security interest debate to Article 9's opponents. First, security often is indistinguishable in its economic effects from other transactions, such as sales and the repayment of debts, that the state generally facilitates. This creates a presumption that the state should facilitate the creation of security interests. Second, a debtor that issues security is merely alienating its property. That our society encourages freedom of alienation generally strengthens the normative presumption that society should encourage the issuance of security. The opponents of security cannot overcome the normative presumption that security should be facilitated, given the theoretical and empirical uncertainties that H & M expose. Hence, legislators should act as if the desirability of security is established.
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.