represent the total benefits and total costs in making the decision in that way.
When total costs are subtracted from total benefits for a particular option, the
result constitutes the net benefit of making the decision according to that
option. Conveniently these net benefits for Options 1-n are labelled Net
Benefits 1-n.
This said, there may be a problem in practice in aggregating criteria because
they cannot be measured or cannot be measured by the same standard. All that
can be said in reply is that a decision maker has to do their best because the
logical basis of decision making rests on net benefit.
Step 7 Evaluating Options
Aggregating the criteria enables the decision maker to determine the net benefit
of Options 1-n, namely Net Benefits 1-n. Having determined the net benefit
that each option yields, the decision maker can evaluate each of the options
and determine which option in the range Options 1-n constitutes the best way
to exercise the discretion. Put simply, the best option consists of the one that
yields the highest net benefit.
Step 8: Decision
It is rational to want the best. Therefore the decision maker exercises the
discretion by making the decision in a manner that yields the highest net
benefit.
Model for Transactions
The model for transactions can be set out in a table:
Law
Facts
Processes
Element 1
Fact 1
Process 1
Element 2
Fact 2
Process 2
Element n
Fact n
Process n
Consequences
Figure 4.16 Model for Transactions
This model for transactions is the same as the model for litigation, except for
the third column. This is the case because the first and second columns
perform identical functions. Since these have been explained above in the
discussion of the model for litigation, we do not need to say anything more
about them.
The third
column is headed “Processes”. This is the situation because of a
fundamental difference between litigation and transactions. In litigation the case
involves past facts which have to be proved by evidence. In a transaction
 |
 |
 |