3. The lease agreement did not demand that the team specifically be called the "Anaheim Angels," but rather that "Anaheim" merely had to be contained within the teams name. Was this a "rational gap" in the contract? Explain, and discuss the costs of filling this gap. 4. Much of this case discusses the injunction requested prior to the start of the 2006 season which was denied (city requested keeping the "Anaheim Angels" as the team name until the case is tried). The dissenting opinion (starting on page 20 of the PDF) says that an injunction at this point is useless, but should have been issued when the City of Anaheim first requested it. As economists, we would like the court to be expected-cost minimizing at the time the injunction was requested. Detail the (expected) cost-benefit analysis the court should have made at the time on the injunction request, and whether you believe the cost did indeed minimize expected costs