Free interstate mobility turned American states into competing sellers of laws

Evidence

That people and goods flowed freely across state lines was the most important fact of American law. It meant that a competitive market of laws existed in the country. If a New Yorker had money, and wanted a divorce, she went to another state. If the corporation laws of his state were too harsh for an entrepreneur, there were friendlier laws in New Jersey, and later on, in Delaware. The states could act as “laboratories” of social legislation, to use a later euphemism, but this was only half the story. The states were sellers of competing laws in a vast federal bazaar. A kind of Gresham’s law was in operation: easy laws drove out the harsh ones. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2374

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Divergent state liability rules made interstate carriage outcomes unpredictable — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3867; States weaponize legal difference to attract commerce as a wealth source — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3767; No formula ever settled how states could apportion interstate business for taxation — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3247 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• States weaponize legal difference to attract commerce as a wealth source #corroborates (0.90) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3767
• No formula ever settled how states could apportion interstate business for taxation #expands (0.75) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3247