Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:48:34.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indemnisation des préjudices et fréquence des procès en présence d’une asymétrie d’information sur l’aversion au risque des parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Éric Langlais
Get access

Abstract:

This paper studies in a model à la Bebchuk how the existence of an asymmetric information on the risk aversion of parties engaged in a trial affects the way they litigate. We first consider the situation where the plaintiff is the informed party, and solve for the equilibrium with and without pre-trial negotiations. Then, we analyze the comparative static of the model and the effects of alternative fee-shfting rules. Finally, we discuss several extensions: the case where the defendant is the informed party, the influence of the representation of litigants’ preferences, and of the existence of the optimistic bias (or self-serving bias).

Résumé:

Résumé:

L’article examine l’effet d’une asymétrie d’information sur l’aversion au risque des parties opposées dans un litige, dans un modèle à la Bebchuk. On étudie d’abord le cas où le plaignant est la partie informée, en caractérisant l’équilibre sans et avec négociation avant le procès. On étudie ensuite la statique comparative du modèle, ainsi que l’incidence du choix d’une règle d’allocation des coûts du procès. On discute enfin plusieurs extensions: le cas où le défendeur est la partie informée, l’influence de la représentation des préférences et l’existence de biais d’optimisme comparatif ou de représentation de soi (self-serving bias).

Keywords

litigationsasymmetric informationbias in risk perceptionD81K42litigesasymétrie d’informationbiais de perception du risqueD81K42
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 191 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

CEREFIGE et Université Nancy 2.

References

Références bibliographiques

Babcock, L. et Loewenstein, G. (1997). “Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self serving bias”, Journal of Economic Perspective, vol. 11, n° 1, pp 109–126.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. A. (1984). “Litigation and settlement under imperfect information”, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 15, n°3, pp 404–415.Google Scholar
Che, Y-K. et Yi, J.G. (1993). “The role of precedents in repeated litigation”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, vol. 9, n°2, pp 399–424.Google Scholar
Cooter, R., Mark, S. et Mnookin, R. (1982). “Bargaining in the shadow of law: a testable model of strategic behavior”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 11, n°2, pp 225–379.Google Scholar
Daughety, A. (2000). “Settlement”, in: Bouckaert, B., De Geest, G., Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, pp 95–158.Google Scholar
Daughety, A. et Reinganum, J. (1994). “Settlement negotiations with two-sided asymmetric information: model duality, information distribution and efficiency”, International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 14, n°3, pp 283–298.Google Scholar
Deffains, B. et Doriat-Duban, M. (2001). «Equilibre et régulation du marché de la justice: délais versus prix», Revue Economique, vol. 52, n°5, pp 949–974.Google Scholar
Deffains, B., Doriat-Duban, M. et Langlais, E. (2008). Economie des actions collectives, PUF.Google Scholar
Decidue, E. et Wakker, P. (2001). “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 23, n°3, pp 281–298.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. et Pecorino, P. (1994). “Pretrial negociations with asymmetric information on risk preferences”, International Review on Law and Economics, vol. 14, n°3, pp 273–281.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. et Pecorino, P. (2002). “Pretrial bargaining with self-serving bias and asymmetric information”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 48, n°2, pp 163–176.Google Scholar
Farmer, et Pecorino, (2004). “Pretrial settlement with fairness”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 54, n°3, pp 287–296.Google Scholar
Ichino, A., Polo, M. and Rettore, E. (2003). “Are Judges Biased by Labor Market Conditions?”, European Economic Review, vol. 47, n°5, pp 913–944.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. (1993). “Shifting plaintiffs fees versus increasing damage awards”, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 24, n°4, pp 625–630.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. et Shavell, S. (1994). “Why the legal system is less efficient than the income tax in redistributing income?”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 23, n°2, pp 667–681.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. et Shavell, S. (2000). “Should legal rules favor the poor: clarifying the role of legal rules and the income tax in redistributing income?”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 29, n°2, pp 821–835.Google Scholar
Marinescu, I. (2005). “Are Judges Sensitive to Economic Conditions? Evidence from UK employment tribunals”, Working paper, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Polinski, A. et Che, Y-K. (1991). “Decoupling liability: optimal incentives for care and litigation”, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 22, n°4, pp 562–570.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J., Guthrie, C. and Wistrich, H. (2007). “Heuristics and Biases in Specialized Judges: The Case of Bankruptcy Judges”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 163, n° 1, pp 167–198.Google Scholar
Reinganum, J.F. et Wilde, L.L. (1986). “Settlement, litigation and the allocation of litigation costs”, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 17, n°4, pp 557–566.Google Scholar
Roëll, A. (1987). “Risk aversion in Quiggin and Yaari’s rank-order model of choice under uncertainty”, The Economic Journal, vol. 97, n°4, pp 143–159.Google Scholar
Shavell, S. (1982). “Suits, settlement and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternatives methods for the allocation of legal costs”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 11, n°1, pp 55–81.Google Scholar
Shavell, S. (1989). “Sharing of Information Prior to Settlement or Litigation”, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 20, n°2, pp 183–195.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. et Wakker, P.(1995). “Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights”, Econometrica, vol. 63, n°6, pp 1255–1280.Google Scholar
Viscusi, K. (1995). “Insurance and catastrophes: the changing role of the liability system”, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, vol. 20, n°1, pp 157–176.Google Scholar
Viscusi, K. (2001), “Jurors, judges and the mistreatment of risk by the courts”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol 30, n°1, pp 107–142.Google Scholar
Weber, E. et Kirsner, (1997). “Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 14, n°1, pp 41–61.Google Scholar
Yaari, M. (1987). “The Dual Theory of choice under risk”, Econometrica, vol. 55, n°1, pp 95–116.Google Scholar