Conclusion
My purpose in this article is not to probe the sorts of deals most likely to be made by the wealthy—though the examples chosen are obviously from a restricted class of deals. Neither am I attempting to “show up” principled negotiation as a general rule. Most of the examples used in this article are so clearly atypical that a general system of negotiating could not be impeached solely by reference to them.
Rather, my goal here is to show that the negotiator ought to be sensitive to those elements of a deal that may not be subject to principled valuation, as well as to those that are. It is also to begin to delineate the legitimate place of will in a negotiating system generally founded on externally verifiable claims to fairness.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dobbs, D. (1973).Remedies. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Fisher, R. andUry, W. L. (1981).Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Additional information
Kenneth S. Gallant is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Idaho College of Law, Moscow, Idaho 83843. In cooperation with the Deans of five colleges at the university, he is working on developing a dispute resolution center as a resource for the state.
The author wishes to thank Professor Roger Fisher, Dean Sheldon Vincenti, and Wayne H. Davis for their comments and criticisms on this manuscript, and Israel Chafetz and Liz Kopelman for stimulating his thought on this issue.
About this article
Cite this article
Gallant, K.S. The sale of a unique object in an open market. Negot J 4, 355–360 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000772
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000772