This chapter takes the basics of demand developed in Chapter 3 and applies them to understanding how features of a health insurance plan influence individual decision-making in the market for medical care. The chapter unpacks how plan cost sharing characteristics (copayments, coinsurance, and indemnity), as well as pricing change and triggers (deductibles and payment limits) influence demand and individual consumption decisions.

Chapter 6 studies the case of Franco-Prussian War indemnities of 1871. France paid the indemnity of 25 per cent of output in three years to Prussia. The years following the end of the war featured several default-like characteristics (output contraction and high debt levels) but saw neither a devaluation of its currency nor a fall in real wages. France had easy access to loans at reasonable interest rates, with high investor participation from both foreign and domestic sources. The most important factor was that France had accumulated a high stock of foreign assets, meaning its net debt was essentially zero, which incentivised a settlement that did not include sanctions or confiscations. In this case, enforcement of sovereign debt played a positive role, in that a default would have been more costly than repayment. It is also likely that military enforcement was not needed, because France was incentivised to repay because of its easy access to debt and stock of foreign assets. The macroeconomic situation was, crucially, one in which the current account was positive, meaning that while France repaid the indemnity it did not do so by indebting itself.

Chapter 5 is a brief history of Haitian indemnities to France. The chapter gives an overview of how France used gunboat diplomacy to negotiate a large indemnity in exchange for recognition of the Haitian state. Even though Haiti won its independence in 1804, transfer to France had to be paid until 1947. Haiti had to borrow from French banks to finance the transfers, which settled them with a crippling stock of sovereign debt for more than a century. I discuss how the debt can be considered odious.

Insurance is a concept most people are familiar with. The majority of us insure at least one item of property that we own, such as our home and our car. Some of us also insure our health, the trips we take, or even our own lives. The idea of insurance is to transfer the risk of something bad happening to ourselves or our property to somebody else (the insurer). In this chapter, we will first discuss the general concept of insurance before looking at the relevant regulatory framework. The chapter then discusses the various features of an insurance contract before explaining the process for making such a contract. The key duties of utmost good faith and disclosure are then examined, followed by the principle of misrepresentation and the effects it has on an insurance contract. Finally, the chapter considers the basic principles of interpretation that apply to insurance contracts, along with the remedies available to the parties when things go wrong.

Both equity and trustee legislation confer rights on trustees which enable them to perform their obligations effectively and protect them from some of the more onerous aspects of the responsibilities of trusteeship. Only selected rights are covered in this chapter, the most important of which is the trustee’s right of indemnity. The trustee’s most significant liability is for breach of trust; however, the trustee is also liable at law to incur the expenses of the trust. This liability gives rise to the trustee’s right of indemnity. The trustee’s exposure to liability must therefore be understood before his or her rights can be considered.

Despite being humiliating to France, the financial obligations imposed by the Allied Council led to political reforms in that country and an intertwining of financial interests across Europe. The property rights of smaller countries and individuals were respected as much as the demands of the four great powers were. Bankers benefited from the loans, and wealthy European citizens who bought these so-called rentes helped finance France’s security. French and European security rested on the capitalist foundation of financial ‘securities’, securing the new peace order through the payment of reparations. This led to a transformation towards a new system of financial and capitalist power alignments in Europe, exemplified by the formula: ‘indemnity for the past and security for the future’.

This chapter examines the nature of trusteeship and the possible actions for breach that can be brought by the beneficiaries. Breach can arise by commission [actively commiting a breach of trust]or by omission [failing to carry out a duty owed by the trustee]. The duties of a trustee arise either under common law or under statute or under the trust instrument. A trustee is liable for any breach of trust that causes a loss to the beneficiaries and must restore the equivalent value. The trustee will only be liable for a breach that caused the loss to the fund and the claimant must establish a causal link. The liability of trustees is joint but the beneficiaries can choose to only sue one trustee but in some cases the court may indemnify a trustee such as where one trustee has acted fraudulently. The beneficiaries may be able to claim interest as well as compensation from the fund. Trustees may be able to rely on an exemption clause which will exonerate them from liability. If there is no exemption clause trustees may be able to rely on other defences such as consent of the beneficiaries or the statutory defence under s.62 Trustee Act 1925.