b1 today bianchi fasani; garry; gonzalez; iftikhar; klock; parra; roberts
DESCRIPTION
MUSIC: THE MAMAS & THE PAPAS, 16 of Their Greatest Hits (1965-68) ***************************** U PCOMING LUNCHES : MEET ON BRICKS @ 12:05. B1 TODAY Bianchi Fasani; Garry; Gonzalez; Iftikhar; Klock; Parra; Roberts. B2 WEDNESDAY Fayne; Heino; Ramlal; Revah; Sader; Simowitz; Walls. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
MUSIC: THE MAMAS & THE PAPAS, 16 of Their Greatest Hits
(1965-68)*****************************
UPCOMING LUNCHES: MEET ON BRICKS @ 12:05B1 TODAY
Bianchi Fasani; Garry; Gonzalez; Iftikhar;
Klock; Parra; Roberts
B2 WEDNESDAYFayne; Heino; Ramlal; Revah;
Sader; Simowitz; Walls
RING STORY (10/78-1/84)
Introduction to EscapeGenerally: Difficult for an Owner to
Lose Property Rights Accidentally • Return of the Ring • We Don’t Presume Abandonment from Carelessness• Hard to Achieve Adverse Possession (See Lutz)
Introduction to Escape
Unit IB: When Does Owner of Escaped Animal Lose Property Rights?
– Why Different from Ring? – What Facts are Relevant?
Introduction to Escape:
Recurring Terminology• Original Owner (OO) (can’t just say “owner”
b/c unclear who owns animal after escape)• Finder (F)• Does OO lose or retain property rights in the
escaped animal? (v. Unit IA: Did pursuer acquire property rights to animal)
Introduction to Escape:
DQ39: URANIUMWhy should an OO ever lose property
rights in an escaped wild animal? Why might we treat an escaped animal
differently from a ring?
Let’s Get Some Ideas on the Table
Introduction to Escape:
DQ39: URANIUMCan you think of a circumstance
where it would be unfair to return an escaped animal to original owner? Focus on right & wrong here & not
legal doctrine.
Introduction to Escape:
DQ40: URANIUMArguments from Prior Authority re
Ownership of Escaped Animals •From Language in Cases? –Although clearly nothing directly targeting–Until something on point, look where you can
Introduction to Escape:
DQ40: URANIUMArguments from Prior Authority re
Ownership of Escaped Animals •From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Rewarding Useful Labor/Investment?
Introduction to Escape:
DQ40: URANIUMRewarding Useful Labor/Investment?•Labor of OO?– Acquisition: Investment in purchase or capture– While Owned: In confining, maintaining, training– After Escape: In pursuit
•Labor of F?– In capturing– In confining, maintaining, training
Introduction to Escape:
DQ40: URANIUMArguments from Prior Authority re
Ownership of Escaped Animals •From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Providing Certainty?
Introduction to Escape:
DQ40: URANIUMProviding Certainty?
•Certainty to OO?– No “Perfect Cage Rule”: Don’t have to take ridiculous
steps to keep from escaping?– Aware of What is Necessary to Retain O-Ship?
•Certainty to Decision-Maker: Rule is Easy to Apply?•Certainty to Finder? (we’ll come back to)
Introduction to Escape:
Mullett & Manning• All 3 First Possession Cases Ask Similar Qs• These Cases Use Two Different Approaches:–Mullett: Applies English Common Law Rule –Manning: Fact-Specific Result Not Using English
Common Law Test
• We’ll spend 4 classes working through these cases in detail. Now quick intro to Manning
Manning v. Mitcherson
Once Upon a Time in a small town in
Georgia there lived 2 Canary
Birds …
Manning v. Mitcherson• “Sweet” lived with Mrs.
Mitcherson• [“Sour”] lived with Mr. & Mrs.
Manning• Looked almost identical• Same parted crest• Both escaped
Manning v. Mitcherson
•One of the escaped Canary Birds flew into Mr. Brown’s kitchen.•Mr. Brown gave it to the Mannings.•The Mannings refused Mrs. Mitcherson’s request for the bird.•Mrs. Mitcherson sued.
Manning v. Mitcherson:
DQ41: URANIUM (What’s at Issue?)• Magistrate/Justice of Peace Rules in
Favor of Plaintiff Mitcherson. • Ga Supr Ct.: “The answer of the ex-
officio justice of the peace in this case, the same being a certiorari and no traverse thereof, must be taken as true, ...”
“no traverse thereof” Means?
Manning v. Mitcherson:
DQ41: URANIUM (What’s at Issue?)• Justice of Peace Rules in Favor of Plaintiff
• “The answer of the ex-officio justice of the peace in this case, the same being a certiorari and no traverse thereof, must be taken as true, ...”
• “no traverse thereof” = Factual findings not Q’ed. So what are facts for purposes of the case?
Manning v. Mitcherson:
DQ41: URANIUM (What’s at Issue?)• Facts for purposes of the
case =– Plaintiff’s Version =– Canary in Browns’ Kitchen was “Sweet”
So What is Defendant’s Legal Claim on Appeal?
Manning v. Mitcherson:
DQ41: URANIUM (What’s at Issue?)Defendant’s Legal
Claim•Not “It’s My Bird” (No Traverse)• Not “It Was Never Her Bird” (Years In Cage)
•Must Be: “She Lost Property Rights When It Escaped”
Manning v. Mitcherson:
DQ41: URANIUM (What’s at Issue?)Why Did This Case Get
to Georgia Supreme Court???!!!
•Why did the Mannings Keep Fighting?•Why did Mrs. Mitcherson?
LOGISTICS: CLASS #11• No Class Monday & Tuesday• OXYGEN: Mullett Brief Due Thu 9/20 @ 9pm• ALL: Assignment #1 Due Mon 9/24 @ 9pm
Questions on Assignments?
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS =DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
STEPS FROM LAST TIME TO SEE IF/HOW CHANGE IN RIGHTS FITS FIRST THESIS
•Identify decision/activity 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 DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• Identify decision/activity 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 DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time
• 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 DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time
• Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim)• Identify change in circumstances• Does change increase neg. externalities?• If cost of externalities > cost of change
change in rule
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time; Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim)
• French Arrive; Price of Pelts Increases• How does change increase neg.
externalities?• If cost of externalities > cost of change
change in rule
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• Tribe-members killing beavers; RULE = no limits except First-in-Time; Neg. Ext. = Possibility of Overhunting (Slim)
• French Arrive; Price of Pelts Rises Both Cost & Likelihood of Overhunting Increase
• What happens next?• If cost of externalities > cost of change
change in rule
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGEN
• French Arrive; Price of Pelts Rises Both Cost & Likelihood of Overhunting Increase
• Tribe Develops Property Rights System• Must have invoked decision-making system• Decided on new rules & mechanisms to implement• [Incurring Transaction Costs associated with change]
• If cost of externalities > cost of change change in rule
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ33 (MONTAGNE) : OXYGENTribe Develops Property Rights System Incurring
Transaction Costs Associated with Change•Can Explain Under Demsetz First Thesis:• Perceived Costs of Potential Overkilling Increase • Become Greater than Costs of Change• Leading to Change in Rule
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ34: OXYGEN
Why does the author believe that the tribes of the Southwestern U.S. did not adopt a system
for rights to Buffalo similar to the one the Montagne for rights to beavers?
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ34: OXYGEN
Why does the author believe that the tribes of the Southwestern U.S. did not adopt a system
similar to that of the Montagne?•No Scarcity Issue•Beavers Dam BUT Buffalo “Roam” (Harder/More Expensive to Create Exclusive Property Rights)
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS DQ35 (SEXUAL HARASSMENT)
• Identify decision/activity 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 DQ35 (AIR POLLUTION):
OXYGEN • Identify decision/activity 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
New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than
the cost of internalization.”•Useful description of how legal change can occur•Going forward, can use to argue that legal change should occur.
Questions?
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS
New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than
the cost of internalization.”•Useful description of how legal change can occur.•Going forward, can use to argue that legal change should occur b/c social changes have greatly increased negative externalities.
DEMSETZ FIRST THESIS
New property rights tend to develop “when the gains of internalization become larger than the cost
of internalization.”•Useful description of how legal change can occur•Can use to argue that legal change should occur
Questions?
DEMSETZ SECOND THESIS
Over Time, Process Described in 1st Thesis
Leads to More and More Private Property
DEMSETZ SECOND THESISDQ36: KRYPTON
Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power/Force to Exclude Others)• Common Law re Rights among Family
Members• Fairly Uncommon Today
DEMSETZ SECOND THESISDQ36: KRYPTON
Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power to Exclude)2.Communal Ownership • No one can exclude others completely• In practice, often variants of First in Time
DEMSETZ SECOND THESISDQ36: KRYPTON
Alternatives to Private Property 1.State of Nature: (Can Use Power to Exclude)2.Communal Ownership (Can’t Exclude/1st-in-Time)3.Can Have Non-Communal State Ownership • Like Private Property BUT Gov’t Management• E.g., Military Bases