THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment. and this ma be true. It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer (when the cattle- raiser was liable for damage) in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planting would subsequently be abandoned (including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle raising). But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not affect the long-run equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the attle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them But the ultimate result (which maximises the value of production) is pendent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work wit cost V. THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW The harmful effects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms. An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill. A recent case in Florida concerned a building which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel. The problem of straying cattle the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rathe.3 and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination ne example of a problem which arises in many different guises. To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, i propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases Let us first reconsider the case of Sturges v. Bridgman' which I used as an illustration of the general problem in my article on"The Federal Communi cations Commission. In this case a confectioner (in Wigmore Street)used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business (one had been in operation in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more han 26 years). a doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises (in Wimpole Street). The confectioner's machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner's kitchen It was hen found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner's machin- 5 See Gale on Easements 237-39(13th ed M. Bowles 1959) See Fontainebleu Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc ., 114 So, 2d 357(1959) 11Ch.D.852(1879)8 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment. And this may be true. It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer (when the cattle￾raiser was liable for damage) in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planti~ng would subsequently be abandoned (including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle￾raising). But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not affect the long-run equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the cattle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle. It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them. But the ultimate result (which maximises the value of production) is inde￾pendent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work without cost. V. THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW The harmful effects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms. An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill.5 A recent case in Florida concerned a building which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel.6 The problem of straying cattle and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination in the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rather a special case, is in fact but one example of a problem which arises in many different guises. To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, I propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases. Let us first reconsider the case of Sturges v. Bridgman7 which I used as an illustration of the general problem in my article on "The Federal Communi￾cations Commission." In this case, a confectioner (in Wigmore Street) used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business (one had been in operation in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years). A doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises (in Wimpole Street). The confectioner's machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner's kitchen. It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner's machin￾s See Gale on Easements 237-39 (13th ed. M. Bowles 1959). 6 See Fontainebleu Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (1959). 711 Ch. D. 852 (1879)