Should private markets be allowed to impose restraints upon alienation.
{"Image DocumentName": "Should private markets be allowed to impose restraints upon alienation?", "Image ImageDescription": "A restrain upon alienation restricts the buyer on how he or she may use the good or transfer the dood. Typically, if the original owner restricts future use, it lowers the present market value. Thus, the original owner pays for the restriction. General assumption that the present owner can most efficiently decide the most profitable allocation of the resource. Can there be restraints that enhance market value? Non-compete clauses. Sale of stock to outsiders. Franchise agreements. Sublets. Resale price maintenance. Is it possible for the social cost of the private restriction to exceed the private cost? Example: Restraints that restrict future sales based on race and religion. Agreement between A and B affects C.", "Image XResolution": "37", "Image YResolution": "37", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Centimeter", "Image Software": "SlidePlayer", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Centered"}