Law and Economics, 6th edition Robert Cooter Berkeley Law QUESTION 4.9: Rank the following six transactions from lowest to highest transaction costs. Explain your ranking by reference to the costs of search, bargaining, and enforcement. (There is no uniquely correct answer.) a. Getting married. b. Buying an artichoke. c. Acquiring an easement to run a gas line across your neighbor's property. d. Selling a Burger King franchise. e. Going to college. f. Purchasing a warranty for a new car. QUESTION 4.13: Use the theory of transaction costs to justify protecting the following rights by injunction or damages: a. A landowner's right to exclude from his property a neighbor's gas line. b. A new car owner's right to have her car's defective transmission replaced by the seller. c. A homeowner's right to be free from air pollution by a nearby factory. d. A spouse's right to half the house on divorce. QUESTION 5.2: Recall our example of an investment of $100,000 in research that yields a pioneering invention that has no commercial value, and a subse- quent investment of $50,000 in development that yields an improvement that has commercial value of $1 million. Assume that Firm A is uniquely situated to do the pioneering research, and Firm B is uniquely situated to develop the appli- cation. Predict the difference in investment resulting from a broad patent law and a narrow patent law. In making your prediction, distinguish between a situa- tion in which transaction costs prevent Firm A and Firm B from bargaining with each other and a situation in which transaction costs of bargaining are zero. QUESTION 5.28: Assume that every adult in a particular jurisdiction is eli- gible to serve as a juror. Panels of potential jurors are drawn by rotation from the qualified population. Currently, no jurisdiction allows someone called for jury service to hire a qualified replacement. Would society be better off if peo- ple were allowed to engage in a market for jurors? QUESTION 5.40: In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme court decided a case in which landowners challenged the power of a city in Connecticut to take their property for redevelopment. The redevel opment plan did not contemplate that all of the land would be open to the pub- lic. Parts would be privately developed. The plaintiffs alleged that the taking was unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose. The Supreme Court rejected this claim. Use economic analysis to argue for or against the view that such a mixed development plan should be regarded as serving a pub- lic purpose. (For some recent cases like this one, see Web Note 5.9.)