The ninth joint Geneva Association and EALE Conference was held in Copenhagen in April 2001. The main theme of the conference was: how should society cope with risk: through public regulation or through private liability? However, as organizers we were also willing to accept papers that dealt in some other way with risk, uncertainty, liability and insurance, and with the handling of these by the legal system. However, the papers printed here, which constitute a little less than half the papers presented at the conference, can be said to deal with issues that are central to the main theme. Benito Arrunada’s paper, ‘‘A Transaction-Cost View of Title Insurance and its Role in Different Legal Systems’’deals with title insurance. Public registration of title to property is less developed, and as a consequence, (privately provided) title insurance is taken out to a much greater degree in the U.S. than in Europe. In the U.S., it is taken out in 85 per cent of all real estate transactions while the proportion is much smaller in Europe. Title insurance serves not only to eliminate a risk for the buyer of real estate but also to render mortgage-based lending more secure, and mortgages more liquid. Arrunada explains how the insurers in the U.S. have undertaken activities other than insurance in order to lower the risk of defective titles. The insurers thus keep their own title files and in general spend resources on examining the validity of title. They also spend resources on closing transactions properly to avoid future conflicts over title. Addressing the conference’s main theme, Arrunada observes that (in the U.S.) only 7 per cent of the insurance premium reflects the risk of defective title and that the insurers are mainly paid to avoid risk, not to bear it. As Arrunada stresses, by bearing the risk, the insurer signals that it is essentially absent, thereby lowering ‘‘transaction costs’’. From a ‘‘theory of the firm’’ perspective, Arrunada’s paper also contains some interesting observations. For example, he observes that the complementarity of the tasks described above – risk bearing, examination of title, and closing of transactions – has led to their vertical integration (i.e., it is often the case that a firm performs all of these tasks). Henrik Lando’s paper ‘‘When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal?’’ raises a general legal issue: how certain should a court be before convicting a defendant? Naturally, the strictness of the standard of proof is important for the effectiveness of any legal rule, and (returning to the theme of the conference) differences in standards applied in tort versus public (or criminal) law are important in the comparison between private and public control of risk. While the question of the optimal standard of proof is often discussed in terms of
Read full abstract