This is the brief (2 pages, at least 1.5 spaced) essay question for the final exam, due at the start of class on 8/15.
One of the recurrent themes in this course has been that the law sometimes will -- and sometimes will not -- allow people to give up the benefit of rules that were made for their protection. We saw this in the tort defense of assumption of risk, in the UCC rules for disclaimer of warranty, and in the Perlin Stamp (burglar alarm) and A&M Produce (tomato machine) cases, among others.
Please explain, with examples, how the law decides whether or not people may give up the benefit of rules that were made for their protection. Under what circumstances is it efficient to allow people to waive their rights? (The "Law & Economics" approach) To what extent are the legal decisions based on principles of ethics and "right conduct"? (The "Natural Law" approach).