4 ms·
> Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsibl
by lazulicurio 6y ago
> Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction.
[1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
- yoz-y 6y agoHow about the loser pays at most as much as they have spent? (Not sure how all this would be accounted for, but...) If you spend a ginormous amount of money you already have the advantage of having better representation, no need to add a fear factor into it. I assume there is some cap on the sum people pay even now though?
- justinchan 6y agoI’ve had similar thoughts. SSC did a thought experiment on this. You’ll enjoy this read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-different-from-ours-because-i-just-made-them-up/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif... The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)
- SquishyPanda23 6y agoWow, prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich because they're used to living in mansions?