Coase cases

Legal team:	______________________________	______________________________
	______________________________	______________________________

1. State the Coase theorem.

2. Consider case number: ______

3. Briefly state what decision you think the court reached in the case.

4. Ronald Coase has commented about this case. Briefly state what you think he had to say about it.

The cases:

    Case 1: Sturges v. Bridgman (Ch. D. 852 (1879)):
    Facts of the case: A confectioner (in Wigmore Street) used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business (one had been in operation in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years). A doctor then came to occupy neighboring premises (in Wimpole Street). The confectioner's machinery caused the doctor no harm until eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner's kitchen. It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner's machinery made it difficult for the doctor to use his new consulting room. "In particular.., the noise prevented him from examining his patients by auscultation for diseases of the chest. He also found it impossible to engage with effect in any occupation which required thought and attention." The doctor therefore brought a legal action to force the confectioner to stop using his machinery.

    Case 2: Cooke v. Forbes (L.R. 5 Eq. 166 (1867-1868)):
    Facts of the case: One process in the weaving of cocoa-nut fiber matting was to immerse it in bleaching liquids after which it was hung out to dry. Fumes from a manufacturer of sulphate of ammonia had the effect of turning the matting from a bright to a dull and blackish color. The reason for this was that the bleaching liquid contained chloride of tin, which, when affected by sulphurated hydrogen, is turned to a darker color. An injunction was sought to stop the manufacturer from emitting the fumes. The lawyers for the defendant argued that if the plaintiff "were not to use . . . a particular bleaching liquid, their fiber would not be affected; that their process is unusual, not according to the custom of the trade, and even damaging to their own fabrics."

    Case 3: Bryant v. Lefever (4 C.P.D. 172 (1878-1879)):
    Facts of the case: The plaintiff and the defendants were occupiers of adjoining houses, which were of about the same height. Before 1876 the plaintiff was able to light a fire in any room of his house without the chimneys smoking; the two houses had remained in the same condition some thirty or forty years. In 1876 the defendants took down their house, and began to rebuild it. They carried up a wall by the side of the plaintiff's chimneys much beyond its original height, and stacked timber on the roof of their house, and thereby caused the plaintiff's chimneys to smoke whenever he lighted fires. The reason ... why the chimneys smoked was that the erection of the wall and the stacking of the timber prevented the free circulation of air.

    Case 4: Bass v. Gregory (25 Q.B.D. 481 (1890))
    Facts of the case: The plaintiffs were the owners and tenant of a public house called the Jolly Anglers. The defendant was the owner of some cottages and a yard adjoining the Jolly Anglers. Under the public house was a cellar excavated in the rock. From the cellar, a hole or shaft had been cut into an old well situated in the defendant's yard. The well therefore became the ventilating shaft for the cellar. The cellar "had been used for a particular purpose in the process of brewing, which, without ventilation, could not be carried on." The cause of the action was that the defendant removed a grating from the mouth of the well, "so as to stop or prevent the free passage of air from [the] cellar upwards through the well .... " What caused the defendant to take this step is not clear from the report of the case. Perhaps "the air.., impregnated by the brewing operations" which "passed up the well and out into the open air" was offensive to him. At any rate, he preferred to have the well in his yard stopped up.... Evidence showed that the shaft from the cellar to the well had existed for over forty years and that the use of the well as a ventilating shaft must have been known to the owners of the yard since the air, when it emerged, smelt of the brewing operations.