A methodological critique of the Chicago School of legaleconomic analysis, in particular Posner's approach, is illustrated by an example characterizing Chicago-type 'analysis of law'. Although the discussion of the example referred to may be interesting in its own right, its purpose here is to suggest a more general framework of criticism in order to allow for generalizable conclusions. The suggestion of an alternative interpretation and solution to a particular legal problem serves to point out some limits of the methodology Posner has adopted. This applies more generally to the delineation of the limits of the role economics can play in actual litigation in helping judges and juries to arrive at fair as well as socially efficient solutions.