Economic consequences for lawyers
Beyond the jurisprudential preface
This article moves from the premise that a bilateral relationship between law and economics requires the contribution of the theory of legal argumentation. The article shows that, to be legally relevant, economic consequences have to be incorporated into interpretive arguments. In this regard, the jurisprudential preface strategy proposed by Craswell goes in the right direction, but begs the question of why the legally relevant consequences have to be assessed in terms of total welfare maximization instead of, in the EU context at least, consumer welfare maximization. After having identified five points of divergence between total and consumer welfare approaches, the article draws from legal inferentialism to propose an analytical tool – the explanatory scorekeeping model – for assessing the explanatory power of these two approaches. The model is then applied to the reasoning in United Brands Company v. Commission.
Keywords: consumer welfare, economic consequences, explanatory scorekeeping, jurisprudential preface, total welfare
Published online: 17 December 2020
Armour, John, Henry Hansmann, Reiner Kraakman and Mariana Pargendler
Averitt, Neil W. and Robert H. Lande
Canale, Damiano and Giovanni Tuzet
Coleman, Jules L.
Driesen, David and Richard P. Malloy
Epstein, Richard A.
Forthcoming. Uniting Law and Economics in Diversity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Esposito, Fabrizio and Lucila De Almeida
Esposito, Fabrizio and Stefan Grundmann
Garoupa, Nuno, Carlos Gómez Ligüerre and Lela Mélon
Geradin, Damien, Anne Layne-Farrar and Nicholas Petit
Jolls, Christine, Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler
Kaplow, Louis and Steven Shavell
Kraus, Jody S.
Landes, William M.
MacCormick, Neil and Richard S. Summers
Navarro, Pablo E. and Jorge L. Rodríguez
Papayannis, Diego M.
Posner, Richard A.
Wils, Wouter P. J.