No Spin: Why Judge Posner’s Roulette Player Can RecoverHis Orange Chip*

Jordan T. Smith

I. INTRODUCTION

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge

Richard A. Posner’s affinity for the game ofroulette has been well documented in his judicialopinions1 and scholarly writing.2 Most famously,Judge Posner often uses roulette to explain the con-cept of ‘‘loss of chance’’ damages.3 In Judge Pos-ner’s hypothetical, he explains why a rouletteplayer would, according to probabilistic injury the-ory, recover less than his original bet in the unfor-tunate event that the entire casino collapses beforethe roulette ball stops spinning.4 While the hypo-thetical may explain the loss of chance conceptin a rudimentary manner, it demonstrates thatJudge Posner is much more familiar with statisticsthan he is with gaming law. Applying gaming lawprinciples to Judge Posner’s unlucky rouletteplayer demonstrates that the player does not losehis bet only to recover damages in proportion tohis percentage chance of winning. Rather, undergaming contract law and the applicable statutesand regulations, the jinxed spin terminates the bet-

ting contract entitling the player to recover the fullamount of his initial wager.

II. THE SPIN

Judge Posner describes the hypothetical as fol-lows:

Suppose you’re playing [European style]roulette on a 37-number wheel (18 red, 18black, and 1 green) at the Casino de Monte-

*An orange chip represents $1,000. N.J. Admin. Code 19:46-1.1A(d)(9).Jordan T. Smth, B.A., University of Iowa, 2007; J.D. DrakeUniversity Law School, 2010. Mr. Smith is an associate in theLas Vegas Practice Group of the law firm of McCormick, Bar-stow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth. He was a research assistantto Professor Keith C. Miller of Drake University Law Schoolduring the drafting of the first edition of Anthony N. Cabot

& Keith C. Miller, The Law of Gambling and Regu-

lated Gaming: Cases and Materials (2011). Mr. Smithwould like to thank Professor Miller for his assistance withthis article. Mr. Smith would also like to thank his wife forher love and support.

1Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc.,– F.3d –, 2011 WL 2652201 at *8 (7th Cir. July 8, 2011)(‘‘Are animals not appropriate objects of state subsidy? Can-not Citation, Man ‘o War, Seabiscuit, and Secretariat be distin-guished, as objects of public solicitude, from roulette wheelsand one-armed bandits?’’); Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v.Blagojevich, 638 F.3d 519, 544 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner. J dis-senting) (‘‘The disappearance of racetracks, jockeys, horses,bridles, blacksmiths, racetrack touts, and DVDs of ‘‘NationalVelvet’’—replaced by croupiers, glassy-eyed retirees at one-armed bandits, roulette wheels, and blackjack tables, all onriverboat casinos—would be commended as progress. ButAmerican government is not committed to the laissez-faire vi-sion of society.’’); BCS Services v. Heartwood, 637 F.3d 750,758–59 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘‘‘Suppose you’re playing rou-lette .’’); Milam v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 588 F.3d955, 958 (7th Cir. 2009) (same); Brackett v. Peters, 11 F.3d78, 81 (7th Cir. 1993) (‘‘Russian roulette’’) (citations omitted);Phillips v. Brennan, 912 F.2d 189, 191 (7th Cir. 1990) (percuriam) (‘‘human roulette’’); Nielsen Lithgraphing Co. v.N.L.R.B., 854 F.2d 1063, 1065 (7th Cir. 1988) (‘‘Russian rou-lette’’).2Richard A. Posner, Efficient Responses to Catastrophic Risks,6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 511, 513 (2006) (‘‘Russian roulette’’).3BCS Services v. Heartwood, 637 F.3d 750, 758–59 (7th Cir.2011); Milam v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 588 F.3d 955,958 (7th Cir. 2009).4BCS Services v. Heartwood, 637 F.3d 750, 758–59 (7th Cir.2011); Milam v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 588 F.3d 955,958 (7th Cir. 2009).

GAMING LAW REVIEW AND ECONOMICSVolume 15, Number 11, 2011� Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.DOI: 10.1089/glre.2011.151106

693

Carlo,5 and after you have placed your $1,000bet on red, which will pay you $2,000 if theball lands on red, the casino collapses throughthe negligence of a building contractor,destroying not only the roulette wheel butalso your chips, and you cannot get themoney you paid for them back because allthe casino’s records were destroyed when itcollapsed.6

III. JUDGE POSNER’S HOUSE RULES

In Judge Posner’s casino, the player would need toproceed under a ‘‘loss of chance’’ theory and pro-duce evidence of what economists refer to as theplayer’s ‘‘expected benefit’’ in order to recoverany damages for the lost bet.7 According to JudgePosner, the player’s damages would correspond tothe player’s expected benefit for that specific spin.Although it may seem obvious, the player has aless than 50–50 chance of hitting his predictedcolor due to the presence of the one green square.If the ball lands on green, both red and black bettorslose.8 The player’s expected benefit would be his48.6% of winning if and when the ball lands onred.9 As a result, Judge Posner confines the playerto recovering only 48.6% of the $2,000 amountthat the player had the chance to win. Consequently,the maximum amount the player could recover inJudge Posner’s casino is $972.73.10

Fortunately, under gaming contract law and theapplicable statutes and regulations, the ball bouncesa little bit more in favor of the player.

IV. THE NATURE OF A GAMINGCONTRACT

A. Contract principles

Wagers between a casino and a player are gov-erned by principles of contract law.11 A gamingcontract is ‘‘‘[a] contract by which two or more par-ties agree that a certain sum of money will be paidor delivered to one of them or that they shall gain orlose on the happening of an uncertain event..’’’12

Because gambling is a contract, all the elementsof an enforceable contract must be present beforethere is a binding agreement.13 There must be anoffer, acceptance, and consideration.14

An offer is an outward manifestation, either bywords or conduct, of a desire to enter into a contract,which confers upon the offeree the power to make avalid contract.15 Casino advertisements and tableminimum/maximum bet signs are considered invita-tions for players to make offers by placing a bet.16

The player actually extends the contractual offerby placing his bet.17 Thus, the player is consideredthe offeror and the casino becomes the offeree.18

An acceptance is an action taken by the offeree,through promise or performance, which creates acontract.19 The offeree-casino accepts the player’soffer by taking the bet.20

Consideration is the bargained-for exchange ofsomething of value between the parties.21 The casinopromises that if certain random events occur, the

5Due to Judge Posner’s documented dislike for the use of for-eign authority in United States courts, Richard A. Posner,

How Judges Think 347–68 (2008), and for general ease ofwriting, it will be assumed for the remainder of this articlethat Judge Posner is referring to the Monte Carlo Casino locatedin Las Vegas, Nevada, USA instead of the world-renown Casinode Monte Carlo in Monaco. Even with the aforementioned qual-ification, it should also be noted that this Article cites primarilyto New Jersey and Pennsylvania statutes and administrative reg-ulations governing roulette. There are no substantial differencesbetween the rules that govern roulette in New Jersey, Pennsyl-vania, and Nevada. However, the New Jersey and Pennsylvaniaregulations are more easily accessible through traditional elec-tronic research methods and the Internet. See, e.g., State of NewJersey Casino Control Commission Chapter 47: Rules of theGames available at < http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/reg/chapter_47.html > . See also, The Pennsylvania Code Chapter531: Roulette available at < http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter531/chap531toc.html > (may be subject to changeper < http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol41/41-24/970.html > ).6Milam v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 588 F.3d 955, 958 (7thCir. 2009).7See id.8N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.2(b)–(c).

9See id.10Milam, 588 F.3d at 958.11Anthony Cabot & Robert Hannum, Advantage Play and Com-mercial Casinos, 74 Miss. L.J. 681, 722 (2005) [hereinafterAdvantage Play].12Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Knowles, 39 So. 3d100, 107 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary

1579 (6th ed. 1990)).13Advantage Play, supra note 11, at 722.14Id.15Id. at 722–23.16Id. at 723–24.17Id. at 723.18See id.19Id. at 724.20Id.21Id.

694 SMITH

casino will pay the player a predetermined amount ofmoney.22 The player is giving up the amount ofmoney wagered for the chance to win a prize.23

The contract’s consideration is made up of this ex-change between the player and the casino.24

Once the contract is formed, the parties’ obliga-tions to perform do not arise until a specified ‘‘ran-dom event occurs.’’25 The specified random eventcould be the appearance of a winning combinationof symbols on a slot machine or the appearance ofa certain number on the dice in craps.26

The gaming contract is basically a contract of ad-hesion—a take it or leave it agreement whereby thecasino defines the terms of the contract through theapplicable wagering rules and the players agree toplay the game without the possibility of changingthe rules.27 Nonetheless, the applicable gaming stat-utes and regulations impose certain terms of thegaming contract between the player and casino.28

B. Statutory and regulatory gaming contract terms

The rights and obligations of contracting partiescan be superseded by statute.29 Indeed, the lawenters into and defines the obligations of every con-tract and, as a matter of public policy, all contractingparties are presumed to have knowledge of thelaw pertaining to their transactions.30 The gamingindustry is heavily regulated by statute and adminis-trative rules to ensure that casino games are con-ducted honestly and fairly.31 These statutes andregulations can impact the terms of the gaming con-tract between the player and the casino in variousways.32 Most importantly, for present purposes,the law can dictate the exact terms of the contract bystatutorily or administratively setting the rules bywhich the games are conducted.33 The vast majorityof states set the rules for every casino game—including roulette—by statute or regulation.34

V. THE TERMS OF A ROULETTEGAMING CONTRACT

Roulette is a game of chance whereby the spin ofthe wheel and toss of the ball determine winning andlosing.35 Statutes and regulations mandate the termsof a roulette gaming contract by dictating the place-ment of wagers,36 the rotation of the wheel andball,37 the payout,38 and the proper outcome of aspin in the event that an ‘‘irregularity’’ occurs.39

A. Offer

Statutes and regulations establish the manner inwhich offers to form a roulette gaming contractmust be made. All roulette bets must be made byplacing chips on the appropriate areas of the roulettelayout.40 A bet that is not placed in an acceptablemanner is not considered a valid offer and no gam-ing contract will be formed. The player is responsi-ble for the correct positioning of his chips even ifthe dealer assists with placing the player’s chipson the roulette layout.41 This rule is especially im-portant when there are numerous players placingbets in different color chips at a crowded roulettetable.

There are a number of permissible bets that canbe made on any one spin of the roulette wheel.For example, a player can place a ‘‘straight’’ betby placing a chip in the box of a single number onthe roulette layout. A ‘‘straight bet’’ is a wagerthat the roulette ball will land in a compartment ofthe roulette wheel that corresponds to a single num-ber selected by the player.42 A player can make a‘‘split’’ bet by placing a chip on the line betweentwo boxes that contain two selected numbers.43

Players can also make variations on straight and

22Id.23Id. at 725.24Id.25Id. at 683.26Id. at 683–84.27Id. at 722.28Id. at 726.29Id.30Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Knowles, 39 So. 3d100, 107 (Ala. 2009) (citations omitted).31Advantage Play, supra note 11, at 726.32Id.33Id.34See, e.g., N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47 et seq. available at< http://www.newjersey.gov/casinos/actreg/reg/chapter_47.html#6 > .35Anthony Cabot, Glenn J. Light & Karl F. Rutledge, AlexRodriquez, A Monkey, and the Game of Scrabble: The Hazardof Using Illogical to Define the Legality of Games of MixedSkill and Chance, 57 Drake L. Rev. 383, 392, 395 n.75(2009).36

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1.37

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3.38

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.2.39

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4.40

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(a).41

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(c).42

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(1).43

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(2).

JUDGE POSNER’S ROULETTE PLAYER AND GAMING CONTRACT LAW 695

split bets by betting on three numbers,44 four num-bers,45 the first five numbers,46 six numbers,47

seven numbers,48 eight numbers,49 a column ofnumbers,50 a dozen numbers,51 odd numbers,52

even numbers,53 numbers 1 to 18,54 numbers 19 to36,55 and black numbers.56 Judge Posner’s rouletteplayer made a bet that the roulette ball will cometo rest in any compartment of the roulette wheelthat corresponds to a number with a red back-ground.57 This is known as a ‘‘red’’ bet.58

B. Acceptance

A roulette bet can only be accepted in the formprescribed by statute or regulation. A roulette betis accepted by the casino when the dealer spinsthe ball and declares, ‘‘no more bets.’’59 The ‘‘nomore bets’’ signal indicates that the player’s offercannot be rescinded and the player cannot make ad-ditional offers. Once ‘‘no more bets’’ has been an-nounced, the player may not touch any chips thathave been placed on the roulette layout until thedealer has collected all losing wagers and paid offthe winning wagers.60 The ball must be spun inthe opposite direction of the rotation of the wheeland must complete at least four revolutions aroundthe track to constitute a valid spin.61

C. Consideration

The consideration in a roulette gaming contractconsists of the casino’s promise to pay the predeter-mined payout if the ball lands on a player’s selected

number, combination of numbers, type of number,or color (Table 1).62 The player is giving up a sumof money—his offer/bet—for the chance to win aprize.63

The payouts are the same for both American styledouble zero wheels and European style single zerowheels although European style single zero wheelsoffer the player better ‘‘pure odds.’’64 For example,a player on an American style double zero wheelhas a 37 to 1 chance to hit a straight single numberbet but only gets paid 35 to 1 if that number hits. Onthe other hand, a player has a 36 to 1 chance to hitthe same bet on a European style single zero wheelwhile the payout remains the same.

The casino’s obligation to perform—pay winningplayers—does not form until the spin of the wheel iscomplete and the ball has come to rest in a compart-ment.65 At that point, the dealer will place a marker,called a ‘‘dolly’’ or ‘‘crown’’ on the correspondingnumber on the roulette layout.66 After placing the‘‘crown’’ on the layout, the dealer will collect alllosing bets and then payoff all winning bets.67

Once this sequence of events occurs, all of the gam-ing contracts associated with that specific spin havebeen performed.

Table 1. Predetermined Payouts for Permissible

Bets in Roulette

Bets Payout Odds

Straight 35 to 1Split 17 to 1Three Numbers 11 to 1Four Numbers 8 to 1First Five Numbers 6 to 1Six Numbers 5 to 1Seven Numbers 4 to 1Eight Numbers 3 to 1Column 2 to 1Dozen 2 to 1Red 1 to 1Black 1 to 1Odd 1 to 1Even 1 to 11 to 18 1 to 119 to 36 1 to 1

Source: N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.2(a).

44N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(3).

45N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(4).

46N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(5).

47N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(6).

48N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(7).

49N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(8).

50N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(9).

51N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(10).

52N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(13).

53N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(14).

54N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(15).

55N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(16).

56N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(12).

57N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.1(e)(11).

58Id.59

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3(a)–(b).6058 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. x 531.6(b) < http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter531/chap531toc.html >.61

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3(a).62See Advantage Play, supra note 11, at 724–25 (discussingcraps).63Id. at 725.64

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.2(a)–(d) (No casino.shall payoff winning wagers at a game of roulette at less than the oddslisted below.when roulette is played on a single zerowheel..’’). Both American style double zero wheels and Euro-pean style single zero wheels are found in many casinos today.65See N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3(c).66Id.67

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3(e).

696 SMITH

D. Irregularities terminate roulette

gaming contracts

As an express term of the roulette gaming con-tract, statutes and regulations declare that if an ‘‘ir-regularity’’ occurs during a spin, then the contractfor that spin is terminated and neither party isunder a continued obligation of performance.68 Spe-cifically, if the ball is spun in the same direction asthe wheel or if the ball does not complete four rev-olutions, the dealer must announce ‘‘no spin’’ andmust attempt to remove the ball before it comes torest in one of the numbered compartments.69 A‘‘no spin’’ will also be declared if a foreign objectenters the wheel before the ball comes to rest70 orif the ball leaves the wheel during the spin.71

The ‘‘irregularity’’ term imposed by statutes andadministrative regulations is a form of conditionsubsequent in the roulette gaming contract becauseit provides for an ipso facto cancellation of the con-tract upon the happening of a specified event.72 Theirregularity is the specified event. When an irregu-larity occurs, the dealer must attempt to stop theball from landing in a compartment and the casinois under no obligation to continue to afford theplayer the opportunity to win his prize on that spe-cific spin. Importantly, there is no express or im-plied term of the roulette gaming contract thatallows the casino to collect any bets that weremade on the cancelled spin as the casino is allowedto do with losing bets on ‘‘regular’’ spins.73

Moreover, once the dealer announces ‘‘no spin,’’the player is no longer risking his bet on that spin.Nor is the player under an obligation to continuehis bet on the next spin. The player may decidenot to make another offer and may remove his betfrom the roulette layout at any time until the dealerannounces ‘‘no more bets’’ on the following spin.The statutes and regulations that impose expressterms on the roulette gaming contract essentiallyallow the parties to return to their pre-contract pla-ces when an irregularity occurs. Therefore, theplayer is entitled to recoup his initial offer and re-cover the amount of his bet.

VI. JUDGE POSNER’S SPIN REVISITED

It appears the Judge Posner’s roulette player andthe Monte Carlo Casino formed a valid roulettegaming contract that would be subject to the con-tractual terms imposed by the applicable gaming

statutes and regulations. The hypothetical assumesthat the player made an acceptable offer by placinghis red bet on the appropriate area of the roulettelayout. The casino accepted the player’s offer byspinning the ball and presumably declaring, ‘‘nomore bets.’’74 Thus, the casino was affording theplayer the opportunity to win a $2,000 prize in con-sideration for the amount of his wager. Had the spinbeen completed as normal, the casino would havebeen under a duty to pay the player if the ball landedin a red compartment. Correspondingly, the playerwould have been under a duty to surrender his betif the ball did not land in a red compartment.

Unfortunately, after the bet was placed andthe ball began to spin, the casino collapsed anddestroyed the wheel and all of the player’s chips.Under the ‘‘irregularity’’ condition subsequent termof the roulette gaming contract, as soon as thefirst piece of casino landed in the wheel or assoon as the ball fell off the wheel, the ‘‘irregularity’’condition came into effect and cancelled the gamingcontract between the player and the casino.75 At thatmoment, the terms of the roulette gaming contractmandated that the player was no longer risking theamount of his wager and could rescind his offer.The casino was not entitled to sweep the offeraway as a losing bet. Additionally, the casino ceasedproviding the player with the opportunity to win$2,000 once a ‘‘no spin’’ was announced. In sum,the express irregularity term in the roulette gaming

68See N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4.69

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4(a)–(b).70

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4(c).7158 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. x 531.7(c) < http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter531/chap531toc.html >.72See Restatement (First) Contracts x 250; see Ledoux v.Grand Casino-Coushatta, 954 So. 2d 902, 910 (La. Ct. App.2007) (stating that the language ‘‘malfunctions void all paysand plays’’ in a slot machine’s rules would be part of the gamingcontract so that a malfunction during a slot machine spin wouldvoid the contract between the player and casino); see alsoChannawood Holdings, LLC v. 1209 Washington, LLC., 333S.W.3d 480, 485 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010); Maurer v. Chandler,122 N.E.2d 472, 474–76 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954).73Compare N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.3(c)–(e) with N.J.

Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4.74The hypothetical does not actually state that the ball wasspun. If the ball was not spun, the casino did not accept the play-er’s offer/bet and no contract was formed. In the absence of avalid gaming contract, the player would still be entitled to re-cover the amount of his initial offer.75

N.J. Admin. Code x 19:47-5.4(c); 58 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.x 531.7(c) < http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter531/chap531toc.html >.

JUDGE POSNER’S ROULETTE PLAYER AND GAMING CONTRACT LAW 697

contract entitled the player to recapture his $1,000offer.

Judge Posner’s analysis of the hypothetical ignoresthe terms of the roulette gaming contract imposed bystatutes and regulations. Judge Posner omits the effectof the ‘‘irregularity’’ condition subsequent term of theroulette gaming contract and incorrectly assumes thatthe roulette gaming contract remained in effect dur-ing the collapse of the entire casino. Based uponthat incorrect assumption, Judge Posner concludesthat the player must resort to probabilistic injury the-ory to recover because there was no other proper wayto measure the player’s damages. On the contrary, theplayer can resort to the terms of the roulette gamingcontract between himself and the casino to recoverthe entire amount of his offer.

The additional facts in the hypothetical regardingthe negligence of the building contractor and the de-struction of the casino’s records have no impact onthe outcome under gaming contract law. The build-ing contractor would certainly argue that the playercould only recover $972.73 under a loss of chancetheory. Nevertheless, as demonstrated, the playerwas no longer taking a chance at the moment hischips were destroyed. The player was lawfully enti-tled to his $1,000 under the roulette gaming contractwhen the casino collapsed. The only reason that theplayer was damaged in the amount of $1,000 afterthe casino crumbled was due to the negligence ofthe building contractor, not because the player ini-tially attempted to wager it with the casino. As aconsequence, the player can recover his $1,000from the negligent building contractor.

Furthermore, the loss of the casino’s recordswould not prevent the player from proving his$1,000 damages. The essential terms of the rou-lette gaming contract, for purposes of his case,are set out in statutes and regulations that wouldnot have been destroyed. The same circumstantialevidence that the player would use to establish

that he bet $1,000 in Judge Posner’s hypotheticalwould also suffice to prove the amount he was en-titled to recover after applying gaming contract lawprinciples.

VII. CONCLUSION

Luckily, Judge Posner presides over a SeventhCircuit Court of Appeals courtroom instead ofyour local roulette pit. As his well-known roulettehypothetical demonstrates, the Judge’s knowledgeof gaming law principles does not match his prow-ess with statistics.76 In the unfortunate event that theentire casino collapses before the roulette ball stopsspinning, a player does not need to resort to a ‘‘lossof chance’’ or ‘‘probabilistic injury’’ theory of re-covery. Under gaming contract law and the govern-ing statutes and regulations, the player is able torecover the amount of his entire bet and lives tosee another spin.

76Nor does it match his impressive body of scholarship. See,e.g., Richard A. Posner, The Crisis of Capitalist Democ-

racy (2010); Richard A. Posner, A Failure of Capital-

ism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent into Depression

(2009); Richard A. Posner, Antitrust Law, (2d ed.2001); Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason (1994);Richard A. Posner, What Judges Think of the Quality ofLegal Representation, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 317 (2011); RichardA. Posner, The Bluebook Blues, 120 Yale L.J. 850 (2011);Richard A. Posner, Let Us Never Blame A Contract Breaker,107 Mich. L. Rev. 1349 (2009); Richard A. Posner, Are Amer-ican CEOs Overpaid, and, if so, What if Anything Should BeDone About it?, 58 Duke L.J. 1013 (2009); Richard A. Posner,In Defense of Prometheus: Some Ethical, Economic, and Reg-ulatory Issues of Sports Doping, 57 Duke L.J. 1725 (2008);Richard A. Posner, Privacy, Surveillance, and Law, 75 U.

Chi. L. Rev. 245 (2008); Richard A. Posner, Common-LawEconomic Torts: An Economic and Legal Analysis, 48 Ariz.

L. Rev. 735 (2006); Richard A. Posner, The Role of theJudge in the Twenty-First Century, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 1049(2006); Richard A. Posner, Do We Have Too Many IntellectualProperty Rights?, 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 173 (2005).

698 SMITH