Injunctive remedies are more efficient than damages when the parties can bargain with one another assuming these neighbors are capable of bargaining.
When two parties are incapable of bargaining, such as divorcees, the court should order compensatory damages when reallocating the resources.
Where there are few obstacles to cooperation (low transaction costs), the more efficient remedy is to enjoin the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's property. Where there are obstacles to cooperation (high transaction costs), the more efficient remedy is to award compensatory money damages. Transaction costs: search costs, bargaining costs, enforcement costs. Thus...
A. If the gas line has already been laid, enforcement costs would be too high for an injunction, thus compensatory damages are more efficient.
B. Since the car is not usable with a defective transmission and it is relatively cheap for a seller to replace a transmission, injunction would be more efficient bc of low transaction costs.
C. Assuming enforcement costs are too high for the factory to continue to function, transaction costs would be high and thus a compensatory damages should be awarded to the homeowners.
D. Depending on the relationship btwn the newly divorced couple, if bargaining costs are high, then compensatory damages should be awarded.
Owning a dog is not against what a normal, reasonable person would do. Owning a tiger, however, is. Therefore, when a person owns a tiger, they are breaching a duty to keep people from unnecessary harm. Therefore, the owner of the dog is only liable when the harm is caused by negligence while the owner of the tiger is always liable because, in a sense, owning a tiger is negligent in the first place. Under strict liability, only cause needs to be proven and owning the dangerous tiger is the cause of the harm. Examples of strict liability: absolutely dangerous actions such as possession, or Statutory rape in criminal law, and possession of certain animals or abnormally dangerous activities for tort law.