• 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

    Eroding Entitlements as Litigation Commitment

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Eroding_Entitlements_as_Litiga ...
    Size:
    407.2Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Ayres, Ian
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/457
    Abstract
    This Comment on Omri Ben-Shahar's excellent article makes two points: 1. Entitlements might be more valuable under an erosion rule than under a no-erosion rule. 2. In contractual settings, any observed irrelevance is likely to be the product of forces that are independent of Omri Ben-Shahar's "litigation commitment" antierosion effect. But before discussing these two issues, let me briefly reformulate Ben-Shahar's contribution. First, erosion rules can give rise to an "antierosion" effect because erosion rules are a litigation commitment device that helps entitlement holders commit to prosecuting a broader class of opportunistic breaches. In Ben-Shahar's model, erosion is caused by promisors who intentionally chisel on their duties, knowing, because of the costs of litigation, that the promisees cannot credibly threaten to sue. Second, Ben-Shahar's irrelevance claim is both stronger and weaker than he acknowledges. The irrelevance claim is stronger, because his model shows not just that erosion costs will be the same under different erosion rules, but that we know that these costs will always be exactly equal to litigation costs saved. The promisors will always chisel to the point where the promisee is almost indifferent between paying litigation costs and swallowing the erosion costs. The irrelevance claim is weaker than Ben-Shahar suggests because, while total erosion costs stay the same, different erosion rules produce different profiles (or cash flows) of erosion. The model predicts that no-erosion rules will produce constant amounts of erosion in each period, but that erosion rules will produce increasing amounts of erosion in each period (less erosion than under a no-erosion rule in early periods and more erosion than under a no-erosion rule in later periods). These different erosion profiles predicted by the model provide an important testable implication. If we don't think that promisors increase their chiseling through the course of their performance, then we might question whether other parts of Ben-Shahar's model are accurate.
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  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.