Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except
>>> in complicated cases.
>
>> There is already small-claims court for very small cases.
>
> Depends on where you are.  But your emphasis on "very" is apt for
> anywhere I've lived.
>
>> But generally both sides in a dispute will want the most able advocates
>> they can get, and they will continue to want that no matter what system
>> is in place to adjudicate disputes.
>
> I disagree.  Generally, both sides in a dispute want the dispute settled
> rapidly and cheaply enough that an adverse decision won't risk their
> standard of living.
>
> How cheap is cheap enough?  I'd say, say, 10% of the value of the
> claim.  Anything above that, the system's broken.  Rapidly enough?
> Well, I can't see why a typical case couldn't be resolved in ~6 weeks.
> It was in times past.

If the value of the claim is $2000000000, 10% pays a lot of attorneys.
And "adverse decisions" can easily threaten your "standard of living"
even without legal costs.

The system has a problem when a favorable decision can threaten your
standard of living.

-- 
David Kastrup