Suchergebnisse

"WLCS-RL-75-17." ; "10/16/75." ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Job displacement insurance typically includes both unemployment benefits and lump-sum severance pay, and each has provoked policy concerns. Unemployment insurance concerns have centered on distorted job search/offer acceptance decisions by the worker, severance-induced firing cost concerns on excessive labor hoarding by firms. A single period private contracting model is used to investigate the interaction of these two seemingly distinct issues. Viewed singly, familiar results emerge. The absence of separation benefits of any kind leads to excessive labor hoarding as a primitive form of earnings insurance. In a limited information environment, the distribution of job displacement insurance between the two benefit types becomes important. Unemployment insurance benefits must be limited (relative to first-best levels) and severance pay made more generous. Firing cost considerations are less familiar. Because the firm wants to provide benefits, they cannot be contracted around. Although formally driven by the sum of (unsubsidized) severance pay and expected unemployment benefits, the second-best firing cost program limits severance pay only. Together the two constraints create an unpromising contracting environment. The firing cost constraint is the more easily relaxed by government action - subsidies of sufficient size to one or another of the separation programs will work. Offer acceptance requires restrictions on leisure (workfare). Unfortunately, if first-best benefits are mandated, efficiency requires that both be eased.

[EN] The harmonization of European Contract Law for consumers and businesses continues to progress; however, without some standardization of the insurance contract, it will be difficult to achieve a true single market. This Article chronicles the European Union's activities towards this goal, including the role of the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law, which provides a set of model rules for European legislators. The Article also analyzes: (i) the appropriate legal nature of the instrument of European Contract Law; (ii) the scope of that legal instrument (e.g., whether the instrument should cover both cross-border and domestic contracts, and whether it should include contracts between businesses and consumers or only those between businesses); and (iii) the most appropriate scope to answer the needs to be served. The Article argues for the use of optional instruments as a key step towards a harmonized system and offers that the best way forward is to construct a regulatory system whose ultimate objective is to be globally applicable. Lastly, the Article concludes that the law of insurance contracts is a constituent part of contract law, and as such, the best legislative practice for the regulation of insurance contracts is to restrict its scope to those issues that differentiate insurance from the general theory of obligation and contract. ; Bataller Grau, J. (2015). The Harmonization Of European Contract Law: The Case Of Insurance Contracts. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. 21(1):149-172. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/70172 ; S ; 149 ; 172 ; 21 ; 1