 |
June 22, 2023
Competition v. Benefits |
June 19, 2023
Clogged Courts |
June 12, 2023
Preparing Applications in Uncertain Conditions |
May 8, 2023
Competence is a Delicate Flower |
March 30 , 2023
Urgent! Very Hard to Meet a Limitation Period |
March 13 , 2023
Parties to Planning Appeals |
March 7 , 2023
Costs in Family Law Litigation |
January 30 , 2023
Dodging Settlement Privilege |
January 4 , 2023
Lurking Dangers and Errors |
January 3 , 2023
Your Real Goals |
December 5 , 2022
Contracts for Higher Costs |
November 24 , 2022
Scope of Offers to Settle |
October 13 , 2022
Checklist for Cross-Examination |
September 16 , 2022
Reviewing Latest Changes |
August 22 , 2022
First Steps in Problem Solving |
July 28 , 2022
Checklist of Powerful Procedural Principles |
March 22 , 2022
Repeating a Cross-Examination Question
|
January 25 , 2022
Enforcing Land Sales Becomes Easier |
January 5 , 2022
Proving a Settlement After a Mediation
|
November 16, 2021
Types of Injunctions
|
October 1, 2021
Orders After Litigation is Over
|
August 11, 2021
Discoverability for Limitation Periods
|
August 5 , 2021
Releases of Claims
|
June 7 , 2021
Language Used Still Matters
|
May 17 , 2021
Serving Uncooperative People
|
April 15 , 2021
Death and After-Life of Contingency Agreements
|
February 22 , 2021
Legal Analysis
|
February 2 , 2021
Costs Clarified at Last
|
January 4 , 2021
Urgent!
|
December 10, 2020
Traps and Confusion in Service Times
|
November 24, 2020
Don't Cut Corners
|
October 2 , 2020
Consent Orders
|
August 4 , 2020
Electronic Hearings
|
July 21, 2020
Ceasing to Act
|
June 29, 2020
Writing Skills
|
June 29, 2020
Keeping Up With the Law
|
June 22, 2020
Assets as a Test for Security for Costs
|
June 19, 2020
What is This Case About?
|
June 11, 2020
Cross-Examining Child Witnesses
|
May 20 , 2020
Formal Offers
|
May 13 , 2020
Vexatious or Self-Represented Litigants
|
January 7, 2020
G.S.T. and Costs
|
December 20 , 2019
Electronically Navigating the
Handbook
|
October 7 , 2019
Questioning is a Bad Word
|
July 29 , 2019
Dismissal for Delay
|
May 7 , 2019
Rule 4.31 Fallacies
|
March 18 , 2019
More Dangers in Oral Fee Agreements
|
February 11 , 2019
Weir-Jones Decisions
|
January 9 , 2019
Discouraging Settlements
|
November 30, 2018
European Court Helps You Twice?
|
November 23 , 2018
Courts Overruling Tribunals
|
November 16 , 2018
New Evidence on Appeal
|
October 30 , 2018
Schedule C's Role
|
July 17 , 2018
Loopholes in Enforcing Settlements
|
|
May 7 , 2018
Enforcement of Procedure Rules
April 16, 2018
Limping Lawsuits are Often
Doomed
April 3 , 2018
Court of Appeal Tips for
Summary Decisions
March 19, 2018
Serious Dangers in Chambers
Applications
February 13 , 2018
Court Backlog
December 18 , 2017
Lowering the Status of Courts
September 15 , 2017
Access to Court Decisions
July 4 , 2017
Strictissimi Juris
June 14 , 2017
Why Don't Your Clients Settle?
June 5 , 2017
Gap in Rules About Parties
June 5, 2017
Personal Costs Against
Solicitors
April 26, 2017
Clogged Courts
April 11, 2017
Dismissal for Want of
Prosecution
January 6, 2017
Incomplete Disclosure
December 15, 2016
Mediation
November 23, 2016
Is Contract Interpretation Law? |
|
|
Welcome
Côté’s Commentaries
© J.E. Côté 2016-2023
|
People in a dispute often display puzzling reluctance to settle (compromise). Probably there are a number of submerged reasons for that. But one of them seems to be exposed by psychologists.
Various psychologists have several times run laboratory experiments known as “ultimatum games”. One player is offered a sum of money, payable if another player will agree to share it with the first player. It is up to the two players to see if they can agree on the split between them. If no deal is made, neither player will get anything. Every time the experiment is tried, roughly half the two-person teams cannot agree and so get nothing. Yet logically, any small share (beyond say a dollar or so) would be better than nothing. So ultimately one should take a cheap offer from the other player. In fact about half the players would not accept less than about one fifth. Yet the amounts involved were not just token or symbolic; they could be as high as one month’s salary.
This should interest lawyers, because this should be a win-win situation; it is not a zero-sum game, despite how about half the players seem to treat it. The exact situation sounds contrived, but an everyday lawsuit where the litigation expenses of the two antagonists threaten to eat up the amount in issue, is very similar.
The experiments are written up in Colin Camerer, Behavior Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction (Princeton U.P. 2003), pp. 42-81. I found an account of this in Sarah Chayes, Thieves of State (Norton N.Y. 2015) p. 44.
– Hon. J.E. Côté
|
|
The Commentaries are intended to call the attention of lawyers to promising or threatening developments in the law, in civil procedure, in developing their skills, or simply to describe something curious, funny or intriguing.
The Hon. Jean Côté retired from the Court of Appeal of Alberta and would be willing to act as an arbitrator, mediator, or referee under Rules 6.44 and 6.45 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
He may be contacted through Juriliber at:
email: info@juriliber.com or phone 780-424-5345.
|
|