is the title of a new paper by Alan Schwartz and Robert E. Scott (Columbia) posted on SSRN.  Here's the paper and here's the abstract:

Market damages - the difference between the market price for goods or services at the time of breach and the contract price - are the best default rule whenever parties trade in thick markets: they induce parties to contract efficiently and to trade if and only if trade is efficient, and they do not create ex ante inefficiencies. Courts commonly overlook these virtues, however, when promisors offer a set of services some of which are not separately priced. For example, a promisor may agree to pay royalties on a mining lease and later to restore the promisee's property. In these cases, courts compare the cost to the promisor of providing the service that was not supplied to the increase in the market value of the promisee/buyer's property had the promisor/seller performed. When the cost of completion is large relative to the "market delta"- the increase in market value - courts concerned to avoid "economic waste" limit the buyer to the market value increase. This concern is misguided. Since the buyer commonly prepays for the service at the ex ante market price, a cost of completion award actually has a restitution element - the prepaid price - and an expectation interest element - the market damages. The failure to recognize the joint nature of cost of completion damages causes courts to deny these damages more frequently than they should. In this paper, we argue that the unappreciated virtues of market based damages justify removing the courts' discretion to deny them no matter how high they appear to be. The rule that denies buyers market damages induces excessive entry into these service markets. Moreover, buyers are under-compensated when they prepay and cannot recover the price paid for the breached services but instead are restricted to the market delta. As a result, too few buyers contract ex ante for the relevant service and surplus maximizing contracts are forgone. Finally, sellers often can take actions in the interim between making the contract and the time for performance of the service that would reduce the service cost to manageable proportions. Sellers are less likely to take these precautions if they are required to pay buyers only the market delta rather than the full performance cost that their actions could have avoided.

 Another fascinating paper from Professor Hathaway, "The Continuing Influence of the New Haven School."  Originally published in 32(2) Yale Journal of International Law in 2007.  Here is the abstract:

This Commentary examines the deep and abiding influence of what has been called the New Haven School of international law. It considers the connection between the past and the present the ideas first formulated by Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Lasswell more than a half-century ago, and those, both near and far, whose work they have influenced.

Professor Hathaway has posted a paper originally published in the journal International Organization in 1998 (v. 52, no. 3) on SSRN, entitled "Positive Feedback: The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Industry Demands for Protection".

Here is the abstract:

This article proposes a theory of dynamic industry preferences and strategies to explain variation in industries' demand for trade protection over time. This theory shows how the characteristics of industries affect their demand for trade policy and how, in turn, trade policy transforms industry characteristics. An important implication of this theory is that trade liberalization tends to reduce, rather than increase, industry demand for protection over the long term. The article begins by developing a static model of industry decision making that illustrates how producers faced with a reduction in trade barriers weigh the costs and benefits of political action and economic adjustment. It then explains how the strategic choices of an industry are determined by key industry characteristics that evolve over time in response to changes in trade policy and market conditions. In particular, it demonstrates that reductions in trade barriers may have a positive feedback effect that dampens rather than amplifies domestic protectionist sentiment. To test this model, the article examines the dramatic postwar transformation of three industries that have historically demanded and received extensive import protection: the footwear, textile, and apparel industries. The article concludes with an assessment of the model and a discussion of its possible implications for our understanding of the politics of trade policy.

Nice review in the Times Literary Supplement by John Habgood, the former Archbishop of York:

A book which begins with the sentence “Evil makes us Human” must surely compel attention. This is no ordinary account of what is usually meant by the problem of evil, where the main emphasis is on justifying the ways of God to man. Instead, Paul W. Kahn’s aim is to explore the nature of evil itself. He interprets it, not just as doing or experiencing bad things, but as “a way of being in the world”. Evil, he claims, is about making ourselves the source of our own meaning, a meaning inevitably negated by death, the certainty of which gives urgency and depth to the way life is lived. It is this consciousness of our mortality, and the refusal to accept its implications, which can lead to the worship of false gods. Ascribing ultimate value to what is essentially nothing at all results in what he calls “a pathology of the will”. Personal evil is essentially about wilfulness rather than reason, nor can it be subsumed within our rational understanding. Evil in this sense, as part of our humanity, is not a fashionable concept, but we have good reasons to recognize it, not least in ourselves.

--- more ---

Three recent law review articles by members of the faculty: 

Ian Ayres and Gideon Parchomovsky,  Tradable Patent Rights, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 863 (2007)

Daniel Markovits, Luck Egalitarianism and Political Solidarity, 9 Theoretical Inquiries L. 271 (2008)

Judith Resnik, No Daubert Hearing Necessary: The Extraordinary Expertise of Margaret Berger, 16 J.L. & Pol'y 6 (2007)

Dan Kahan, Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

Abstract: Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to form beliefs about societal dangers that reflect and reinforce their commitments to particular visions of the ideal society. Cultural cognition is one of a variety of approaches designed to empirically test the cultural theory of risk associated with Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. This commentary discusses the distinctive features of cultural cognition as a conception of cultural theory, including its cultural worldview measures; its emphasis on social psychological mechanisms that connect individuals' risk perceptions to their cultural outlooks; and its practical goal of enabling self-conscious management of popular risk perceptions in the interest of promoting scientifically sound public policies that are congenial to persons of diverse outlooks.

Professor Siegel has posted on SSRN a version of a paper to be published in the Duke Law Journal.  The paper is entitled: "The Right's Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Woman-Protective Antiabortion Argument". Here is the abstract:

"This Lecture investigates the social movement dynamics that produced woman-protective antiabortion argument. The Lecture explores the political conditions under which leaders of the antiabortion movement began to supplement or even to supplant the constitutional argument abortion kills a baby with a new argument, abortion hurts women - a claim that achieved widespread public notice with the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The Lecture's genealogy of a social movement claim begins in the 1980s, when members of the antiabortion movement asserted that abortion subjects women to regret, trauma, and psychological illness, a condition they termed post-abortion syndrome (PAS). My story then follows changes in the abortion-harms-women claim as it was transformed from PAS - a therapeutic discourse initially employed to dissuade women from having abortions and to recruit women to the antiabortion cause - into woman-protective antiabortion argument (WPAA), a political discourse forged in the heat of social movement conflict that sought to persuade audiences outside the movement's ranks in electoral campaigns and in constitutional litigation.

Whereas PAS grew up as a mobilizing discourse deployed primarily among women volunteers and clients in the antiabortion movement's crisis pregnancy network - a context in which abortion-hurts-women testimonials had important expressive functions - WPAA took shape in political contexts in which the abortion-hurts-women argument had important strategic functions. In the 1990s, antiabortion advocates sought to explain to audiences that ambivalently supported the abortion right why women would benefit from legal restrictions on abortion. As they did so, they fused PAS claims and stories with traditional gender-paternalist argument, justifying restrictions on women's agency as needed to protect women from male coercion and to free women to be mothers. As a political discourse designed to rebut feminist, pro-choice claims, WPAA came to internalize elements of the very arguments it sought to counter - fusing the public health, trauma, and survivors idiom of PAS with the idiom of the late twentieth-century feminist and abortion-rights movements. As the Lecture shows, social movement mobilization, conflict, and coalition each played a role in the evolution and spread of the woman-protective antiabortion argument, in the process forging new and distinctly modern ways to talk about the right to life and the role morality of motherhood in the therapeutic, public health, and political rights idiom of late twentieth-century America.

The Lecture concludes by considering the new gender-paternalist justifications for abortion restrictions discussed in Carhart. With the spread of woman-protective antiabortion argument and its seductively modern justifications for using law to impose motherhood on women, Justice Kennedy and the nation will once again have to decide - not only how to balance the liberty of the pregnant woman against the state interest in protecting potential life - but more fundamentally, about the kind of women that constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality protect. This question is far from abstract, as South Dakota once again considers whether to adopt an abortion ban, justified by fetal-protective and woman-protective argument, in the 2008 elections."

 More great information from the Law Library of Congress, this time on the State Secrets Privilege.  Here you will find links to several articles, statements, and other material by Louis Fisher regarding the privilege in this decade.

Professor Listokin recently posted a new paper entitled "Does Shareholder Voting Maximize Stock Market Value."  Here is the abstract:

"This paper examines the relation between shareholder voting and stock market value from a novel empirical perspective. If voting maximizes value, then the outcome of close proxy contests should not have a systematic effect on stock prices; price setters will anticipate that voting aggregates information efficiently and will build this expectation into the price of the stock before the voting outcome is announced The paper shows, however, that close dissident victories are associated with significant positive movements in stock prices, while close management victories are associated with negative stock price effects. This suggests that voting outcomes favor management rather than maximizing value, with important policy ramifications. Viewed from a regression discontinuity (RD) design perspective, the study provides unique evidence that dissident control of decision making causes increases in stock value."