Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

themselves and their customers from attempts by con men
and other unscrupulous people to playoff one court
against another for their own benefit, the various
courts, as part of their policies, would have worked
out a g r e em en t s wit h 0 n e an 0 the r s p e c i f ying to wh i c h
appeals court a legal proceeding involving two differen
t courts would be taken. Prudent ial and Metropol i tan
Co u r t Compani es, for exampl e, may dec i de in advance to
take all differences betwee.n them to Acme Appeals Court
Company. But Prudential and Zenith Companies may agree
tot a k e s uc h casest0 Que e n CityAppea 1s Cou r t Com pany •
In th i s way the cho i ce of appeals courts would be a
routine matter. The decision of the appeals court
would be binding.(51)
Finally, what of a dispute where one or both
parties do not have prior contractual agreements and
one 0 f the par ties ref used to s ubmitthe cas e to arb i ­
tration? In the first place, argue the anarchists,
" the rep uta t ion 0 f a rna n wh 0 ref usedar bit rat ion wit hout
good reasons would suffer. People would hesitate
do i ng bus i ness wi th him for fear that they, too, would
be involved in a protracted legal dispute."(52) But
eve n i f 0 nest i I Ire f used, the a narchis t rna i n t a ins t hat
there is no reason why the judicial process could not
pro c e e d . I f S mit h b r i n g s c ha r g esin Co u r t A a g a ins t
Jones then "Court A can only invite rather than subpoena
Jones to attend his trial. Of course if Jones
refused to appear or send a representative, his side of
the case wi II not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds."
If Court A finds Jones innocent then that
would be binding. But if Court A finds Jones guilty
the n Jonesca n e i the r a c c e p t the j ud gmentor con t est
the dec i s ion by t a king itt0 Cou r t B for r e - t ria I . I f
Court B upholds the original decision then Jones is
guilty. But if the courts disagreed they would submit
the matter to a previously agreed upon appeals
court.(53)
What if the courts do not have a prior agreement
.and can no t agree on an a ppea I s cour t ? This i s f e I t to
be amos t un likely occurrence. There would be a monetary
incentive for the courts to reach an agreement.
The i r CllS t orner s, after all, are paying them to decide
the issue and if they are regularly unable to decide
they will lose their clients. Moreover, if the
Maver ick Court Company acquired a reputation for delaying
and disrupting the proceedings, other courts would
simply announce to their own customers that they will
refuse to handle disputes involving clients of
345