CONTENTS
Prologue
Acknowledgments

PART ONE E FRAMEWORK
1.Introduction
II. Welfare Economics and Notions of Fairness
A. Welfare Economics
1. Individuais' Well-Being
2. Social Welfare and individuais' Well-Being
3. Comments on Social Welfare and the Distribution
of Income
4. Concluding Remark
B. Notions of Fairness
1. The Basic Nature of Notions of Fairness
2. Further Comments on Notions of Fairness
(a) Meaning
(b) Nonconsequentialist Character
(c) Ex Post Character 48
(d) Concluding Remark
C. Overview of Our Argument
1. The Argument for Welfare Economics and against Notions of Fairness
2. On the Rationale for Notions of Fairness
D. Notions of Fairness and Social Norms
1. The Nature of Social Norms
2. Implications for the Role of Notions of Fairness
in Legal Policy Analysis

PART TWC E ANALYSIS
III.Torts
A. Welfare Economics and Tort Law
B. Notions of Fairness and Tort Law
1. Notions of Fairness
2. Comments on the Literature
C. Welfare Economics versus Fairness in Paradigmatic Accident Situa tions
1. Reciprocal Accidents
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being The Argument for Welfare Economics and against Notions of Fairness
(ii) Comments on the Literature
(iii) The Significance of the Possibility That All Individuais May Be Made Worse off under Any Notion of Fairness
(f) The Apparent Mootness of Concerns for Fairness
2. Nonreciprocal Accidents
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuals' Well-Being
D. Welfare Economics versus Fairness in Paradigmatic Accident Situations: The Case in Which Harrn Is Uncertain
1. Reciprocal Accidents
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being
(f) The Foregoing Reconsidered When Insurance Is Not Purchased
(i)Victims Uninsured
(ii)Injurers Uninsured
2. Nonreciprocal Accidents
E. The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
1. Social Norms and Notions of Fairness
2. Implications for the Role of Notions of Fairness in Legal Policy Analysis
3. Remark on the Concepts of Injurer and Victim
4. Remark on the Ex Post Character of Notions of Fairness
F. The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Led Us Astray
IV. Contracts
A. Welfare Economics and the Enforcement of Contracts
B. Notions of Fairness and the Enforcernent of Contracts
1. Promise-Keeping
2. The View That Breach Is Akin to a Tort
3. Further Comments on the Literature
C. Welfare Economics versus Fairness and the Enforcernent of Contracts
1. Complete Contracts
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuals' Well-Being
D. Welfare Economics versus Fairness in Paradigmatic Accident Situations: The Case in Which Harrn Is Uncertain
1. Reciprocal Accidents
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being
(f) The Foregoing Reconsidered When Insurance Is Not Purchased
(i)Victims Uninsured
(ii) Injurers Uninsured
2. Nonreciprocal Accidents
E. The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
1. Social Norms and Notions of Fairness
2. Implications for the Role of Notions of Fairness in Legal Policy Analysis
3. Remark on the Concepts of Injurer and Victim
4. Remark on the Ex Post Character of Notions of Fairness
F. The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Led Us Astray
IV. Contracts
A. Welfare Economics and the Enforcement of Contracts
B. Notions of Fairness and the Enforcernent of Contracts
1. Promise-Keeping
2. The View That Breach Is Akin to a Tort
3. Further Comments on the Literature
C. Welfare Economics versus Fairness and the Enforcernent of Contracts
1. Complete Contracts
(a) Description
(b) Examination of Different Contracts
(c) Effects of the Legal Rules
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(e) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(f) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being
(i)In Relation to Promise-Keeping
(ii) In Relation to the View That Breach Is Akin to a Tort
(iii) Summary
2. Incomplete Contracts
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' WelI-Being
(i)In Relation to Promise-Keeping
(ii) In Relation to the View That Breach Is Akin to a Tort
(f) The Apparent Mootness and Arbitrariness of Concerns for Fairness
(g) The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
D. Additional Considerations
1. Distribution of Income
2. Advantage-Taking
3. The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Led Us Astray
V. Legal Procedure
A. Ability to Bring Suit
1. Welfare Economics and the Ability to Bring Suit
2. Notions of Fairness and the Ability to Bring Suit
3. Description of a Basic Case
4.Effects of the Legal Rales
5.Normative Assessment
(a) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(b) Choice of Legal Rules Using Notions of Fairness
(c) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Weii-Being
6.The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
7.Remarks on the Generality of Our Resuits
8.The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Led Us Astray
B. Accuracy in Adjudication
1.Welfare Economics and Accuracy in Adjudication
2.Notions of Fairness and Accuracy in Adjudication
3.Basic Case: Accuracy in Assessing Damages and the Benefit of Inducing Behavior in Accordance with Legal Rales
(a) Description
(b) Effects of the Legal Rules
(c) Choice of Legal Rules Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Legal Rales Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Legal Rules Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being
(f) The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
4.Variations: Accuracy in Determining Damages
(a) Case in Which Injurers Do Not Know in Advance How Much Harm Victims Will Suifer
(b) Case in Which Victims Are Risk Averse and Injurers Do Not Know in Advance How Much Harm Victims Will Suifer
5.Variations: Accuracy in Determining Liabillty
6.Remarks
(a) The Generality of Our Results
(b) Parties' Excessive Incentives to Invoke Procedures in Litigation
7. The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Lcd Us Astray
C. Additional Reasons Why Legal Procedures May Be Valued
1. Possible Tastes for Procedural Fairness
2. Other Ways in Which Procedures May Enhance Individuais' Well-Being
VI. Law Enforcement
A. Welfare Economics and Law Enforcement
B. Notions of Fairness and Law Enforcement
1. Notions of Fairness
2. Comments on the Literature
C. Welfare Economics versus Fairness and Law Enforcement
1. Fair Punishment and Deterrence in a Paradigm Case
(a) Description
(b) Behavior of Individuais under Different Sanctions
(c) Choice of Sanction Using Welfare Economics
(d) Choice of Sanction Using Notions of Fairness
(e) Why the Choice of Sanction Should Be Based Only on Individuais' Well-Being
(i)Effects on the Well-Being of Different Groups
(ii) Actual Imposition of Unfair Punishment under the Two Approaches
(iii) Comments on the Literature
2. Variation of the Paradigm Case: Different Crimes
3. Variation of the Paradigm Case: Imperfect Deterrence
4. Variation of the Paradigm Case: Punishment of the Innocent
(a) Analysis of a Basic Situation
(b) Comments on the Literature
D. The Appeal of Notions of Fairness and Its Implications
1. The Origins and Functions of Notions of Fairness
2. Implications for the Role of Notions of Fairness in Legal Policy Analysis
3. Remark on the Ex Post Character of Notions of Fairness
E. The Extent to Which the Use of Notions of Fairness Has Led Us Astray

PART THREE EXTENSIONS
VII On the Use of Notions of Fairness and Welfare Economics
by Different Types of Actors
A. Ordinary Individuais
B. Legal Academics
1. The Appeal of Notions of Fairness to Legal Academics
2. Why Legal Academics Shoald Be Guided by Welfare Economics
3. Reminder of the Ways in Which Notions of Fairness Are Relevant for Legal Policy Analysis under Welfare Economics
C. Government Decisionmakers
VIII. Comments on the Breadth and Soundness of Welfare Economics
A. Design of Legal Institutions
1. Accuracy
2. Controlling Government Officials' Behavior
3. Legitimacy of Legal Institutions
4. Administrative Costs
B. Preftrences and Individuais' Well-Being
1. Imperfect Information and Other Limitations on Individuals' Decisionmaking
2. The Effect of the Law on Preferences
3. Trumping Objectionable Preferences
4. Tastes for Notions of Fairness
C. Bad Luck and Inequality
1. Bad Luck: Ex Ante versus Ex Post Evaluation
2. Equality and Equal Treatment
D. Additional Concerns about the Application of Welfare Economics
1. Difficulty in Valuing Life, Pain and Suffering, and Other Nonpecuniary Factors
2. Omission of "Soft" Variables
3. Possible Costs of Permitting Market Trade
4. Indeterminacy
(a) Indeterminacy Due to Empirical Uncertainty
(b) Conceptual Indeterminacy
5. The Difficulty of Predicting the Behavior of Individuais, Who Are Not Always Rational
Maximizers of Their Own WelI-Being

IX. Conclusion
References
Index