III. Property
D. Conflicting property rights
    1. Incompatible uses (cont'd.)
    b. In practice 

    Continue worksheet

    Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. 114 So.2d 357 (1959) -- Eden Roc will be harmed by Fontainbleau (name misspelled in citation title in Lexis-Nexis)

1. What are the facts of the case?
2. What was the remedy in this case?
3. May property owners use their property in ways which injure others?
4. Then what are they prevented from doing?
5. Did the court consider the combined welfare effects of the disputants?
6. What is the doctrine of "ancient lights"?
7. Is it relevant here?
8. What rights does custom in Florida grant to Fountainbleau?
9. Would you consider this a low transaction cost case or not? Why?

Illustrates easement remedy w/o liability for damages
Transaction costs may be high even in small-number cases.

    Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz, 500 S.W. 2d 217 (1973)

1. What are the facts of the case?
2. What was the remedy in this case?
3. What does a "balancing of equities" refer to?
4. How does it fit with the notion of optimal pollution?
5. How does it illustrate the property rights assignment rule that Coase recommends?
6. When an easement is granted, what remedy does the suggest is available to the pollutee?
7. How large were the costs at issue in each side in this case?
8. So why didn't the courts rule for the apartments?
9. Why doesn't the court accept the "stern rule of necessity" argument in this case?

    Illustrates the injunction remedy without liability for damages.
    Considers joint value.