At 12:35 PM 7/18/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>> >When you park your car, do you try not to bump into an other car, or
>> >do you bump it into that other car and have the damage repaired later?
>>
>> Well, if someone bumped my car and did $100 of damage, and I valued my
>> time at $50 in lost time to repair it, and the guy who bumped my car
>> was ordered to pay me $200, I wouldn't mind so much.
>
>That was not what I asked. Re-read the question.
I had hoped my example would make my point, but I guess not.
Given: I have a lottery ticket, which must be cashed in 5 minutes for
$500,000, or lost forever.
I this case, I do not take due dilligence to avoid bumping someone's car
while parking. Instead, I park as quickly as possible and dash in to get
my ticket. I quite happily pay for the damage later.
This is because, in this scenario, the cost of me taking due dilligence
while parking is the increase in probability (netP) * $500,000 whereas the
benefit is avoiding having to pay minor damages to someone's car.
Of course, most of the time, the cost of taking due dilligence while
parking is very small, even in comparison to the minor damages - which is
why we take due dilligence. Nevertheless, cost-benefit-analysis still
applies.
>And what do you mean, "ordered to"? Do you Americans take *everything* to
>court? Aren't you capable of settling things between yourselves without a
>lawsuit? If I bump my car into an other car, it will most likely be settled
>between me and the other person, or between my and the other person's car
>insurance.
It depends, as I'm sure it does in the Netherlands. The method of
enforcement is irrelevant, however,
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
