LSE LSE Research Laboratory LSE
LSE Research Laboratory (RLAB)

Abstract for:

SHOULD COURTS ALWAYS ENFORCE WHAT CONTRACTING PARTIES WRITE? This paper replaces TE/2003/464

Luca  Anderlini,  Leonardo  Felli,  Andrew  Postlewaite,  October 2006
Paper No' TE/2006/510: | Full paper (pdf)
Save Reference as: BibTeX BibTeX File | Endote EndNote Import File
Keywords: Optimal Courts; Informational Externalities, Ex-Ante Welfare

JEL Classification: C79; D74; D89; K40; L14

Is hard copy/paper copy available? YES - Paper Copy Still In Print.
This Paper is published under the following series: Theoretical Economics
Share this page: Google Bookmarks Google Bookmarks | Facebook Facebook | Twitter Twitter

Abstract:

We find an economic rationale for the common sense answer to the question in our title — courts should not always enforce what the contracting parties write. We describe and analyze a contractual environment that allows a role for an active court. An active court can improve on the outcome that the parties would achieve without it. The institutional role of the court is to maximize the parties’ welfare under a veil of ignorance. We study a buyer-seller multiple-widget model with risk-neutral agents, asymmetric information and ex-ante investments. The court must decide when to uphold a contract and when to void it. The parties know their private information at the time of contracting, and this drives a wedge between ex-ante and interim-efficient contracts. In particular, if the court enforces all contracts, pooling obtains in equilibrium. By voiding some contracts the court is able to induce them to separate, and hence improve ex-ante welfare. In some cases, an ambiguous court that voids and upholds both with positive probability may be able to increase welfare even further.