2. Generally, a crossclaim is permissive so that the failure to raise it does not bar suit in a subsequent action. Why should this be so? Doesn’t this lead to a multiplicity of suits? Should the rule be different if the crossclaim is transactionally related to plaintiff’s original claim?

Isn’t judicial economy fostered by hearing all transactionally related claims in one suit? Or, is it unfair to force defendants to file crossclaims in a forum not of their own choosing? How would the concept of a compulsory crossclaim have changed the reasoning of both the majority and the dissent in LASA?