tort hypothetical the tort hypothetical needs one adjustment i think scenario three reads if a cause of action does not exist and the damage equals while the cost of the wall equals the wall will exist even though cannot win the lawsuit he or she will still pay some amount between and to build the wall this doesn't seem correct if a cause of action does not exist cannot shift the cost onto so is faced with two options incur the damage or pay a lower amount to avoid that damage by constructing a wall or having a wall constructed the utility maximizing choice would be to pay to build the wall herself she wouldn't pay more than that to have build the wall