Porter’s intended use was to sell the gun. She initially sought to be paid between $70,000 and $90,000 (Porter v. United States). She argues she could have got more money selling it within the private market. We know she valued the gun in its damaged state at below $45,000 because that is what she sold it to King for (King v. United States). This makes the sought compensation between $70,000 and $90,000 unfair, assuming that the damage of the property was always a necessary occurrence.
King was either going to put the gun in his own display, and charge for entry to view the historical artefact, or sell the gun for profit. He argued that part of the $5 million claim was that he had lost theoretical profits from the display of the weapon. The court did not consider these losses of profits but from an economic welfare standpoint, we must consider this.
We know he valued it at more than $45,000 because he agreed to pay this amount. It is difficult to say whether the 5 million value he sought was fair compensation. We can compare this to revenue accrued from other historical artefacts that are privately owned. The Louis XVI desk, where President Kennedy signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, sold for 1.4 million (Johnston David). The gun, like the film, is a unique artefact. Although this desk was sold in 1996, 30 years after King purchased the guns from Porter, this may suggest (taking into account inflation) that although King would have sold it far earlier (his case was in 1968), the gun would have sold in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (Official Data Foundation).
Zapruder himself had sold the reproductive rights and the original to Time INC (Johnston, David). However, it is rational that Zapruder’s family make as much money as they can, this is their individual optimum choice after the eminent domain went into effect. The Zapruder family retained the copyrights on the original film, and despite this, the sought value for the family was $30 million (CBC). The value that was placed by a federal panel was 16 million, which was deemed fair by the Zapruder family (Johnston, David). Since they decided $16 million was fair, this result was equal to or more than the family’s valuation of the film. We know that the government valued the film at more than this since they agreed to pay the full sum, making it welfare improving. However, since the family was satisfied with $16 million in payment, we can determine that their initial sought compensation was not fair because it was more than their valuation.
Welcome to Legit Writing
