Book contents
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I Foundation
- 1 Ownership and possession
- 2 The law is nine-tenths of possession: an adage turned on its head
- 3 The elements of possession
- 4 The economy of concept and possession
- 5 What behavioral studies can teach jurists about possession and vice versa
- 6 The possession heuristic
- 7 Dividing possessory rights
- 8 The titling role of possession
- II Specific issues
- Index
- References
3 - The elements of possession
from I - Foundation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Edited by
Book contents
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I Foundation
- 1 Ownership and possession
- 2 The law is nine-tenths of possession: an adage turned on its head
- 3 The elements of possession
- 4 The economy of concept and possession
- 5 What behavioral studies can teach jurists about possession and vice versa
- 6 The possession heuristic
- 7 Dividing possessory rights
- 8 The titling role of possession
- II Specific issues
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and Economics of Possession , pp. 65 - 102Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Alberti, Federica, Sugden, Robert, and Tsutsui, Kei 2012. “Salience as an Emergent Property,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 82:379–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchian, Armen A. 1965. “Some Economics of Property Rights,” Il Politico 30:816–29, reprinted in Alchian, Armen A. 1977. Economic Forces at Work 127–49. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Gregory S. 2009. “The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law,” Cornell Law Review 94:745–820.Google Scholar
Anderson, Terry L. and Hill, P.J. 1975. “The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of the American West,” Journal of Law & Economics 18:163–80.Google Scholar
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Ross, David trans., revised by Ackrill, J.L. and Urmson, J.O.. Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Arruñada, Benito. Chapter 8, this volume. “The Titling Role of Possession.”Google Scholar
Austin, Lisa M. 2013. “Possession and the Distractions of Philosophy,” in The Philosophical Foundations of Property Law, Penner, J. E. and Smith, Henry E., (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Ian and Gertner, Robert 1989. “Filling in Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules,” Yale Law Journal 99:87–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Douglas and Jackson, Thomas 1984. “Information, Uncertainty, and the Transfer of Property,” Journal of Legal Studies 13:299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, Carliss Y. and Clark, Kim B. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzel, Yoram 1997. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Bethany R. 2006. “It's Not About the Fox: The Untold History of Pierson v. Post,” Duke Law Journal 55:1089–43.Google Scholar
Bingham, Joseph W. 1915. “The Nature and Importance of Legal Possession,” Michigan Law Review 13:535–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, William 1766. Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien 2015 forthcoming. “An Economic and Comparative Analysis of Specificatio (the Accession Doctrine)”, European Journal of Law and Economics 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien Chapter 4, this volume. “The Economy of Concept and Possession.”Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien and Smith, Henry E. 2012. “An Economic Analysis of Common versus Civil Law Property,” Notre Dame Law Review 88:1–55Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien and Smith, Henry E. 2015 forthcoming. “Structure and Style in Comparative Property Law,” in Research Handbook on Comparative Law and Economics, Ramello, Giovanni B. and Eisenberg, Theodore (eds.), Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Steven N.S. 1970. “The Structure of a Contract and the Theory of a Non-Exclusive Resource,” Journal of Law & Economics 13:49–70.Google Scholar
Claeys, Eric R. 2013. “Productive Use in Acquisition, Accession, and Labour Theory,” in Philosophical Foundations of Property Law, Penner, James and Smith, Henry E. (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 13–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Felix S. 1935. “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,” Columbia Law Review 35:809–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corriel, Matt 2013. “Up for Grabs: A Workable System for the Unilateral Acquisition of Chattels,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161:807–60.Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John 2006. “Evolutionary Psychology, Moral Heuristics, and the Law,” in Heuristics and the Law, Gigerenzer, G. and Engel, C. (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch 2011. Property: Values and Institutions. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demsetz, Harold 1967. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights,” American Economic Review 57 (2):347–59.Google Scholar
Dernburg, Heinrich 1900. Pandekten, vol. 1, part 2. 6th edn., with the assistance of Johannes Bierman. Berlin: H.W. Müller.Google Scholar
Dorigo, Marco 1991. “New Perspectives About Default Hierarchies Formation in Learning Classifier Systems,” in Trends in Artificial Intelligence: 2nd Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Edoardo Ardizzone et al. (eds.) 218–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertsson, Thráinn 1990. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1989. “A Hypothesis of Wealth-Maximizing Norms: Evidence from the Whaling Industry,” Journal of Law & Economics 5:83–97.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1991. Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 2011. “The Inevitable Trend Toward Universally Recognizable Signals of Property Claims: An Essay for Carol Rose,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 19:1015–32.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1979. “Possession as the Root of Title,” Georgia Law Review 13:1221–44.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 2002. “The Allocation of the Commons: Parking on Public Roads,” Journal of Legal Studies 31:S515–44.Google Scholar
Ernst, Daniel R. 2009. “Pierson v. Post: The New Learning,” Green Bag (2nd ser.) 13:31–42.Google Scholar
Essert, Christopher 2013. “The Office of Ownership,” University of Toronto Law Journal 64:418–61.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. 2008 “Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition,” Annual Review of Psychology 59:255–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, Angela 2009a. “The Lost Record of Pierson v. Post, The Famous Fox Case,” Law and History Review 27:149–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, Angela 2009b. “Pierson v. Post: A Great Debate, James Kent, and the Project of Building a Learned Law for New York State,” Law & Social Inquiry 34:301–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finberg, James M. 1982. “The General Mining Law and the Doctrine of Pedis Possessio: The Case For Congressional Action,” University of Chicago Law Review 49:1026–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, William J., Dwyer, Robert G., and Fox, C. Robert 1970. “Judicial Uncertainties in Applying the Mining Doctrine of ‘Pedis Possessio’,” Natural Resources Lawyer 3:467–74.Google Scholar
Foster, Nigel G. and Sule, Satish 2010. German Legal System and Laws. 4th edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, David. 1994. “A Positive Account of Property Rights,” Social Philosophy and Policy 11 (2):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Ori and Neary, Karen R. 2009. “First Possession Beyond the Law: Adults’ and Young Children's Intuitions About Ownership,” Tulane Law Review 83:679–90.Google Scholar
Goldberg, John C.P. 2012. “Introduction: Pragmatism and Private Law,” Harvard Law Review 125:1640–63.Google Scholar
Gordley, James and Mattei, Ugo 1996. “Protecting Possession,” American Journal of Comparative Law 44:293–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Thomas C. 1980. “The Disintegration of Property,” in NOMOS XXII: Property, Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W. (eds.), New York University Press, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and Conversation,” in Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–59. Reprinted in Grice, Paul 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddock, David D. and Kiesling, Lynne 2002. “The Black Death and Property Rights,” Journal of Legal Studies 31:S545–87.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1820. Hegel's Philosophy of Right, translated by Knox, T.M.. Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Heylighen, Francis 1999. “Advantages and Limitations of Formal Expression,” Foundations of Science 4:25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, John H., Holyoak, Keith J., Nisbett, Richard E., and Thagard, Paul R. 1986. Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David 1739–40. A Treatise of Human Nature Selby-Bigge, L.A. (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.Google Scholar
Katz, Larissa 2010. “The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession,” McGill Law Journal 55:47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Daniel B. 2015. “Dividing Possessory Rights,” in Law and Economics of Possession, Chang, Yun-chien (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, Dudley 1983. “Hegel on Property and Personality,” Philosophical Quarterly 33:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krier, James E. 2009. “Evolutionary Theory and the Origin of Property Rights,” Cornell Law Review 95:139–59.Google Scholar
Krier, James E., Serkin, Christopher, 2015. “Possession and Ownership,” in Law and Economics of Possession, Chang, Yun-chien, (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langlois, Richard N. 2002. “Modularity in Technology and Organization,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49:19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levmore, Saul 1987. “Variety and Uniformity in the Treatment of the Good-Faith Purchaser,” Journal of Legal Studies 16:43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John 1689. Two Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lueck, Dean 1995. “The Rule of First Possession and the Design of the Law,” Journal of Law & Economics 38:393–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, John F. 2011. “Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation,” Harvard Law Review 124:1939–2040.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, Andrea 2007. “Legal Fictions in Pierson v. Post,” Michigan Law Review 105:735–78.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 1998. “Property and the Right to Exclude,” Nebraska Law Review 77:730–55.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2001a. “The Property/Contract Interface,” Columbia Law Review 101:773–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2001b. “What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?” Yale Law Journal 111:357–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2007. “The Morality of Property,” William & Mary Law Review 48:1849–95.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2009. “Accession and Original Ownership,” Journal of Legal Analysis 1:459–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2015. “Possession and Ownership,” in Law and Economics of Possession, Chang, Yun-chien, (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E. 2000. “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle,” Yale Law Journal 110:1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, Marvin 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge,” in The Psychology of Computer Vision, Winston, Patrick Henry (ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Moselle, Boaz and Polak, Benjamin 2001. “A Model of a Predatory State,” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 17:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossoff, Adam 2002. “Locke's Labor Lost,” University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 9:155–64.Google Scholar
Mossoff, Adam 2011. “The False Promise of the Right to Exclude,” Econ Journal Watch 8 (3):255–64.Google Scholar
Newman, Christopher M. 2009. “Patent Infringement as Nuisance,” Catholic University Law Review 59:61–123.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1993. “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development,” American Political Science Review 87:567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, Shitong. 2014. “Small Property, Big Market: A Focal Point Explanation” (February 21, 2014). American Journal of Comparative Law 63, No. 1 (2015) Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2399675.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pollock, Frederick and Wright, Robert Samuel 1888. An Essay on Possession in the Common Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1976. “Blackstone and Bentham,” Journal of Law & Economics 19:569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2000. “Holmes, Savigny, and the Law and Economics of Possession,” Virginia Law Review 86: 535–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rixecker, Roland and Säcker, Franz Jürgen. 2012. Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 1985. “Possession as the Origin of Property,” University of Chicago Law Review 52:73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 1991. “Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources.” Duke Law Journal:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Carol M. 2015. “The Law is Nine-tenths of Possession: An Adage Turned on its Head,” in Law and Economics of Possession, Chang, Yun-chien, (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas, and Bender, Emily M. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. 2nd edn. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Savigny, Friedrich Carl 1848. Von Savigny's Treatise on Possession; or the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law. Translated by Sir Perry, Erskine. 6th edn. London: S. Sweet.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam 1762–63. Lectures on Jurisprudence, Meek, R.L. et al. (eds.), Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1978, pp. 9–86.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry 1996. Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2002. “Exclusion Versus Governance: Two Strategies for Delineating Property Rights,” Journal of Legal Studies 31:S453–87.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2003. “The Language of Property: Form, Context, and Audience,” Stanford Law Review 55:1105–91.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2005. “Self-Help and the Nature of Property,” Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 1:69–146.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2007 “Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information.” Yale Law Journal 116:1742–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2009. “Community and Custom in Property,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 10:5–41.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2012a. “On the Economy of Concepts in Property,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160:2097–128.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2012b. “Property as the Law of Things,” Harvard Law Review 125:1691–1726.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2013. “Emergent Property,” in Philosophical Foundations of Property Law, Penner, James and Smith, Henry E. (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 320–38.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. ms. “An Economic Analysis of Law versus Equity.”Google Scholar
Sprankling, John G. 1996. “The Antiwilderness Bias in American Property Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 63:519–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Robert 2004 [1986]. The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 2011. “Mutual Advantage, Conventions and Team Reasoning,” International Review of Economics 58:9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinnen, Koen 2012. “Property Law Accessories under the DCFR,” in The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives, Sagaert, Vincent, Storme, Matthias, and Terryn, Evelyne (eds.), Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 289–302.Google Scholar
Umbeck, John 1981. “Might Makes Rights: A Theory of the Formation and Initial Distribution of Property Rights,” Economic Inquiry 19:38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy 1983. “Two Worries About Mixing One's Labour,” Philosophical Quarterly 33:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiannopoulos, A.N. 1994. “Civil Liability for Abuse of Right: Something Old, Something New…,” Louisiana Law Review 54:1173–97.Google Scholar
Yiannopoulos, A.N. 2001. Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Property, vol. 2, 4th edn. St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by