Common use of Changes In Fee-Shifting Rules and Likelihood of Trial Clause in Contracts

Changes In Fee-Shifting Rules and Likelihood of Trial. As we have seen in Proposition 4, for given raw parameters, a change in the fee-shifting rule Φ determines a change in the likelihood of legal disputes. Essentially any change in Φ that decreases the plaintiff’s Court costs increases the likelihood of legal disputes — both those that are settled before trial (outcome S) and those that are tried in Court (outcome C). On the other hand, as we have noted before, a change in the fee-shifting rule leaves cT = cFT + cQT = cˆFT + cˆQT unchanged, and hence does not affect (3). The latter observation suggests that there should be a sense in which fee-shifting is irrel- evant in determining whether a given law suit will be settled out of Court or in fact litigated in Court. This is in fact true in our set up, provided we are careful enough in making the claim precise and taking into account that we are making it for a given law suit. In other 31See Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives (2014), page 28. 32With the numbers in Section 2, when β = 1/2 and cPA = 10, the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 90, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. When β = 1/2 and cPA = 19 the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 81, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. words, we need to filter out of the irrelevance claim the effect that a change in fee-shifting rule may have in the Plaintiff’s decision to file a suit or not. To ease the exposition, and keep notation down we proceed with an informal statement that is made precise in the appendix (see Section A.6 and in particular Proposition A.1, which is a formal re-statement of Proposition 6 below)

Appears in 1 contract

Samples: api.repository.cam.ac.uk

AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Changes In Fee-Shifting Rules and Likelihood of Trial. As we have seen in Proposition 4, for given raw parameters, a change in the fee-shifting rule Φ determines a change in the likelihood of legal disputes. Essentially any change in Φ that decreases the plaintiff’s Court costs increases the likelihood of legal disputes — both those that are settled before trial (outcome S) and those that are tried in Court (outcome C). On the other hand, as we have noted before, a change in the fee-shifting rule leaves cT = cFT cPT + cQT cDT = cˆFT cˆPT + cˆQT cˆDT unchanged, and hence does not affect (34). The latter observation suggests that there should be a sense in which fee-shifting is irrel- evant in determining whether a given law suit will be settled out of Court or in fact litigated in Court. This is in fact true in our set up, provided we are careful enough in making the claim precise and taking into account that we are making it for a given law suit. In other 31See Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives (2014), page 28. 32With the numbers in Section 2, when β = 1/2 and cPA = 10, the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 90, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. When β = 1/2 and cPA = 19 the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 81, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. words, we need to filter out of the irrelevance claim the effect that a change in fee-shifting rule may have in the Plaintiff’s decision to file a suit or not. To ease the exposition, and keep notation down we proceed with an informal statement that is made precise in the appendix (see Section A.6 and in particular Proposition A.1, which is a formal re-statement of Proposition 6 below)

Appears in 1 contract

Samples: test2.thescholr.com

Changes In Fee-Shifting Rules and Likelihood of Trial. As we have seen in Proposition 4, for given raw parameters, a change in the fee-shifting rule Φ determines a change in the likelihood of legal disputes. Essentially any change in Φ that decreases the plaintiff’s Court costs increases the likelihood of legal disputes — both those that are settled before trial (outcome S) and those that are tried in Court (outcome C). On the other hand, as we have noted before, a change in the fee-shifting rule leaves cT = cFT cPT + cQT cDT = cˆFT cˆPT + cˆQT cˆDT unchanged, and hence does not affect (3). The latter observation suggests that there should be a sense in which fee-shifting is irrel- evant in determining whether a given law suit will be settled out of Court or in fact litigated in Court. This is in fact true in our set up, provided we are careful enough in making the claim precise and taking into account that we are making it for a given law suit. In other 31See Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives (2014), page 28. 32With the numbers in Section 2, when β = 1/2 and cPA = 10, the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 90, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. When β = 1/2 and cPA = 19 the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 81, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. words, we need to filter out of the irrelevance claim the effect that a change in fee-shifting rule may have in the Plaintiff’s decision to file a suit or not. To ease the exposition, and keep notation down we proceed with an informal statement that is made precise in the appendix (see Section A.6 and in particular Proposition A.1, which is a formal re-statement of Proposition 6 below)

Appears in 1 contract

Samples: www.repository.cam.ac.uk

AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Changes In Fee-Shifting Rules and Likelihood of Trial. As we have seen in Proposition 4, for given raw parametersparameters Ωˆ, a change in the fee-shifting rule Φ determines a change in the likelihood of legal disputes. Essentially any change in Φ that decreases the plaintiff’s Court costs increases the likelihood of legal disputes — both those that are settled before trial (outcome S) and those that are tried in Court (outcome C). On the other hand, as we have noted before, a change in the fee-shifting rule leaves cT = cFT cPT + cQT cDT = cˆFT cˆPT + cˆQT cˆTD unchanged, and hence does not affect (3)8). The latter observation suggests that there should be a sense in which fee-shifting is irrel- evant in determining whether a given law suit will be settled out of Court or in fact litigated in Court. This is in fact true in our set up, provided we are careful enough in making the claim precise and taking into account that we are making it for a given law suit. In other 31See Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives (2014), page 28. 32With the numbers in Section 2, when β = 1/2 and cPA = 10, the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 90, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. When β = 1/2 and cPA = 19 the payoff to P from settling out of Court is 81, while if he defects and forces a trial he obtains a payoff of 80. words, we need to filter out of the irrelevance claim the effect that a change in fee-shifting rule may have in the Plaintiff’s decision to file a suit or not. To ease Fist we will make the expositionclaim precise, and keep notation down then we proceed with an informal statement that is made precise will discuss the intuition behind it. Suppose we have a given “case” Ωˆ and consider a change in the appendix fee-shifting rule from, say, Φj to Φjj. Let’s call the resulting parameters after fee-shifting is taken into account Ωj = Φj(Ωˆ) and Ωjj = Φjj(Ωˆ). Xxxxxxx also that we know that the change from Φj to Φjj has no effect on whether P decides to file a suit against D. In particular suppose that we know that P will file a law suit against P both under parameters Ωj and Ωjj.32 Then, since the switch from Ωj to Ωjj leaves (see Section A.6 8) unaffected, it must be that either the suit is settled out of Court or it is tried in Court with both parameters Ωj and in particular Proposition A.1Ωjj. Collecting our analysis so far, which is a formal re-statement of Proposition 6 below)we state the following without further proof.

Appears in 1 contract

Samples: www.csef.it

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.