1. What precludes bargaining in the Porter case (i.e. why could the government and Ms. Porter not have
come to a cooperative solution on their own)?
2. Do all three of the cases mentioned (Porters property, Kings rifle, and Zapruders film) satisfy the
mean-and-ends economic justification for eminent domain seizure (as opposed to private bargaining)?
3. The willingness-to-accept values for all three parties is a function of their intended use. Given the
information provided by Porter, King, and Zapruder (i.e. not the governments opinion), what do you
determine what each party would have done with the items had they retained legal ownership? Does
this make their sought compensation fair (representative of their true, unknown, valuation)?
4. As an economist, what is your primary concern with the seizure of Mr. Kings rifle with zero compensation? How could the courts have arrived at a fair compensation for Mr. King? Given the details
provided in the case (or outside research), arrive at a payment that would likely reduce no partys
surplus.
