IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/969.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Colour Of The Judge's Eyes: Efficiency As A Criterion For The Legislature And For The Courts

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Usher

    (Department of Economics, Queen's University)

Abstract

Correctly or not, Ronald Coase is often credited with the doctrine that courts ought to adjudicate for efficiency, that "the value of production" should serve as the criterion for resolving disputes over the boundaries between property rights. The doctrine that courts ought to adjudicate for efficiency is often contrasted with the older doctrine that it is the business of the courts to apply the law as formulated by the legislature, regardless of whether or not the law is efficient. This paper is an exploration of these doctrines. The doctrine that courts ought to adjudicate for efficiency crumbles on close inspection and is very largely wrong.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Usher, 1998. "The Colour Of The Judge's Eyes: Efficiency As A Criterion For The Legislature And For The Courts," Working Paper 969, Economics Department, Queen's University.
  • Handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Legislature; Efficiency; Courts;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • K1 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mark Babcock (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.