{"title":"Health Care Quality Reporting: A Failed Form of Mandated Disclosure?","authors":"K. Madison","doi":"10.18060/3911.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18060/3911.0018","url":null,"abstract":"The recently published book by Professors Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E. Schneider, More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure, imparts valuable lessons and offers food for thought for \"disclosurites\" of all sorts. The book's sensible arguments and voluminous evidence cutting across a broad range of regulatory areas should lead readers to question the advisability of mandated disclosure as a regulatory strategy. At the same time, however, the broad sweep of their work constrains their ability to offer comprehensive assessments of the advisability of particular disclosure policies, leaving readers to wonder whether there are exceptions to the authors' general claim, and if so, what form they might take. In this essay, I explore the possibility that quality reporting might be just such an exception. While quality reporting suffers from many of the problems that Ben-Shahar and Schneider have identified, evidence suggests quality reporting can make a difference. But assessing the net impact of quality reporting is no easy task. The policy objectives underlying governmental quality reporting initiatives are significantly broader than the goal at the heart of Ben-Shahar's and Schneider's analysis, complicating efforts to assess the initiatives' success. The initiatives' costs are also challenging to evaluate, in part because they support not just public reporting, but also other benefit-producing activities. After discussing these and other complexities that highlight the limits of Ben-Shahar's and Schneider's analysis, the essay calls for the development of a framework that lays out key characteristics of disclosure mandates and the environments in which they operate, so that we can develop a better understanding of the characteristics associated with mandate success.","PeriodicalId":157691,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other - Other Issues Involving the Sale of Goods or Services to Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134329471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Canadian on a British Airplane – Compensation and Extraordinary Circumstances in Aviation Delays: British Airways as a Case Study","authors":"N. Goltz, Michael Purves-Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2529430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2529430","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes and analyzes a case study of flight delay and the rejection of compensation to the passenger under the argument of extraordinary circumstances. The article first describe the delay in British Airways flight from London to Amsterdam; the regulatory framework that governs compensation for aviation delay in the European Union and in Canada; and analyse the case study in light of the regulatory framework. Finally, the implications with respect to the regulatory agencies involved are considered and recommendation to improve the regulatory regime are offered.","PeriodicalId":157691,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other - Other Issues Involving the Sale of Goods or Services to Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116715824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Consumer Protection Policy for Franchisees of Failed Franchisors","authors":"Jenny Buchan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1333811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1333811","url":null,"abstract":"Over time, society's needs and expectations have led to franchisees being recognised as a new category of consumer and, since 1998, as a 'business consumer' under section 51AC Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). In Part I of this paper, consumer policy objectives are identified, particularly in so far as they relate to franchisor failure. Three specific areas of the TPA are briefly explored in Part II for their potential as avenues of redress for franchisees of failed franchisors. They are; section 51AC, in relation to unconscionable conduct, the Franchising Code of Conduct (enacted under section 51AE, TPA), and sections 69 to 74H in relation to warranties implied into contracts for purchase of goods or services.In Part III some of the 'elephants in the room are introduced. It is concluded that whilst rehabilitation rather than vilification now awaits failed business people, the consumer protection law is yet to respond to the needs and expectations of franchisees of failed franchisors.","PeriodicalId":157691,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other - Other Issues Involving the Sale of Goods or Services to Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"2019 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128638711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}