{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009079118028534372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025940337224383916, 'mean_word_length': 5.433333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Critiques of the Expectation Measure, and Alternative Damage Regimes

Chapter 22 considers critiques of the expectation measure of damages and alternative damages regime that have been proposed. Most or all of these critiques argue that a given alternative damages regime would significantly further a worthwhile goal. The validity of the arguments that these alternative regimes would significantly further a worthwhile goal that is not promoted by expectation damages is questionable. In some cases the alternative regime would add only a miniscule incentive to the incentives contracting actors already have. In other cases the desired goal is already incentivized by expectation damages, and in all or almost all cases the alternative regime would be unadministrable.