Showing 1 - 10 of 21
An antitrust authority deters collusion using fines and a leniency program. It chooses the probability of an investigation. Firms pick the degree of collusion: The more they collude, the higher are profits, but so is the probability of detection. Firms thus trade-off higher profits against...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011919342
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012003835
This paper analyzes the incentive properties of the standard and burden of proof for a finding of negligence, when evidence is imperfect and rests with the parties. We show that the preponderance of evidence' standard provides maximal incentives to exert care. This holds even though litigants...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011409967
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011980555
An antitrust authority deters collusion using fines and a leniency program. Unlike in most of the earlier literature, our firms have imperfect cumulative evidence of the collusion. That is, cartel conviction is not automatic if one firm reports: reporting makes conviction only more likely, the...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010402216
To encourage private actions for damages in antitrust cases some jurisdictions subtract a fraction of the redress from the fine. We analyze the effectiveness of this policy. Such a rebate does not encourage settlement negotiations that would otherwise not occur. If, however, the parties settle...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012159842
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012205972
This paper analyzes the incentive properties of the standard and burden of proof for a finding of negligence, when evidence about injurers' behavior is imperfect and rests with the parties. We show that the `preponderance of evidence' standard used in common law, together with ordinary exclusion...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10005844236
We argue that the common-law standard of proof, given the rulesof evidence, does not minimize expected error as usually argued inthe legal literature, but may well be e±cient from the standpointof providing maximal incentives for socially desirable behavior.By contrast, civil law's higher but...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10005857933
This paper analyzes the incentive properties of the standard and burden of proof for a finding of negligence, when evidence is imperfect and rests with the parties. We show that the "preponderance of evidence' standard provides maximal incentives to exert care. This holds even though litigants...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010315376