GREGORY KLASS, Georgetown University - Law Center
Email: gmk9@law.georgetown.edu

While much has been written about how individual rules of contract law impact parties' sharing of information, we do not yet have a general theory of the legal regulation of information in contractual relationships. In his recent article, Taking Information Seriously: Misrepresentation and Nondisclosure in Contract Law and Elsewhere, 92 Va. L. Rev. 565 (2006), Richard Craswell starts in on the project of providing one. This essay critically examines Craswell's arguments and discusses what such a general theory should look like. One of my central theses is that such a theory should keep apart two regulatory approaches: the use of scientific methods to study the informational effects of individual transaction elements, and interpretive approaches, which take as their object the meaning and veracity of such elements. The essay also discusses legal liability for implicit misrepresentations and the role of everyday interpretive norms in the law of misrepresentation in general.

The essay first summarizes what I take to be Craswell's central claims about information sharing, summarized by his rejection of the quantized view of information. I then discuss the similarities and differences between the two contract doctrines that are most obviously designed to regulate information sharing: nondisclosure and misrepresentation. This lays the groundwork for a detailed analysis of Craswell's claims about the law of misrepresentation. Craswell uses Grice's theory of conversational implicature to explain of how separate pieces of information can be bundled together in a single speech act. I argue that Craswell wrongly assumes (contrary to Grice's theory) that it is difficult to divorce implicit misrepresentations from the potentially beneficial speech acts that contain them. This error leads Craswell to overstate the similarities between misrepresentation and nondisclosure. The last part of the essay distinguishes two regulatory approaches, which I label causal-predictive and interpretive. Causal-predictive regulation, which Craswell advocates broader use of, employs the methods of behavioral economics to mandate how transactions should be structured. The law of misrepresentation, I argue, uses a fundamentally different method, one that focuses not on causation but on meaning and veracity. I make some general observations about the proper scope of these different regulatory approaches, their relative merits, and the prospects for combining them in the ways Craswell recommends.

VIRGINIA MANTOUVALOU, University of Leicester - Faculty of Law
Email: virginia.mantouvalou@leicester.ac.uk

This article addresses the issue of termination of employment because of the conduct of the employee in her leisure time, in the light of the human right to private life. It explores the impact on the retention of employment of activities taking place outside the workplace and outside working hours, and argues that the approach of domestic courts and tribunals on the matter, which is based on a spatial conceptualisation of privacy, is flawed. Having analysed the reasons why the current interpretation of privacy is wanting, the paper suggests a fresh approach, which rests on the idea of domination that the employer can exercise on the employee. The paper's proposition is based on an interpretation of the right to privacy as a right to control information, rather than a right to act in spatial isolation. It argues that life after work may lead to lawful dismissal only if there is a clear and present impact or a high likelihood of such impact on employment, whilst a speculative and marginal danger does not suffice.

MARGHERITA SARACENO, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca - Department of Statistics, Bocconi University - Centre for Research on Monetary and Financial Economics

Policy makers are currently evaluating group litigation as a device to guarantee effective access to justice and to improve deterrence in torts with multiple victims. This paper focuses on how group litigation affects: 1) access to justice, 2) the choice between settlement and litigation, 3) the settlement amount, and finally, 4) deterrence. The main finding is that group litigation does not always improve access to justice and deterrence. On the one hand, group litigation makes it easier for victims to sue, by creating scale economies and improving their confidence in the outcome of a trial. On the other hand, the group is costly for victims to organize and reduces the injurer‘s liability costs by facilitating settlement and creating scale economies at trial. The combined effect might be a reduction, rather than an increase, in the deterrent effect of tort law.

CASSANDRA R. COLE, Florida State University - College of Business
Email: ccole@cob.fsu.edu
KEVIN EASTMAN, Affiliation Unknown
Email: keastma@cob.fsu.edu
DAVID A. MACPHERSON, Florida State University - Department of Economics, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)
Email: DMACPHER@MAILER.FSU.EDU
PATRICK F. MARONEY, Affiliation Unknown
Email: pmarone@cob.fsu.edu
KATHLEEN A. MCCULLOUGH, Florida State University - College of Business
Email: kmccullough@cob.fsu.edu

Since its inception, the effectiveness of no-fault legislation has been highly debated. While some research suggests that no-fault laws are effective in reducing costs, other evidence suggests that the current no-fault systems may not meet the original objectives. This study takes a closer look at the relation of no-fault legislation and premiums. With the sunset of Colorado's no-fault legislation in 2003, the recent extension of Florida's no-fault law to 2012, and proposed federal choice legislation, the overall impact of no-fault as well as the specific components of the laws are of heightened importance to consumers, insurers, and lawmakers.

AKINTUNDE KABIR OTUBU, University of Lagos, Nigeria - Faculty of Law
Email: bullet20042003@yahoo.com

On the 27th day of January 2002, at or about 4.00 pm, a loud bang was heard from or around the Ikeja Military cantonment. 1. The initial bang was followed by sporadic explosions of bombs and other military hardware stored within the premises of the cantonment. The bang created is loud tremor and earth movement in and around the whole Ikeja and its environs. 2. Balls of fire, smoke, fumes from gaseous substances, metals, and other combustibles escaped from the cantonment into neighbouring houses and premises, causing damage to properties and injuries and losses to residents and other victims and emitting tons of pollution into the atmosphere. 3. This incident, at which the Federal Government and the institutional tortfeasor (Nigerian Army) did little to help the bomb victims, informed this research work. The attitude of government raises many fundamental questions and issues on the right of an individual party vis a vis the state within the domain of civil wrongs and liabilities. In this stance there is the need to examine the legal remedies (if any) available to the victims of the blast under-our legal system with a view to making a tortfeasor accountable for his wrongs and appraising the existing legal regime as to its adequacy or otherwise. Some of the question begging for answer or issue raised by this incident include the following:

* Can the state commit wrong or crime against individuals, groups or corporate persons in the state?

* What rights does individual or group have against the state for civil wrongs (Torts) committed by the state against the individual or group?

* What are the limits (if any) or general hindrance facing individuals wishing to employ the private law regime towards redressing a wrong committed by the state?

* What other avenues, outside private law regime, are available for individuals to assuage and or compensate himself for the loss suffered from state wrongs?

* What are the legal regimes put in place to addressing the problem of National Disasters in Nigeria, and how adequate, effective and efficient are these legal regime?

* How does states in other jurisdiction addresses this kind of problem which borders on National disaster?

* What is the best practicable option available or that can be made available to address problem?