Contents:
Bookmark the permalink. Share this: Twitter More Facebook.
Like this: Like Loading January 15, at am. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.
Email required Address never made public. Name required. Post to Cancel. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy. Detective Kendall Halsrud is an experienced detective. Tell us about that. Who else do we need to meet? Brynn, who has always been reclusive, becomes close to Kendall and Adam as they continue their search for the missing child.
What kind of readers will this story appeal to? Readers who enjoy a compelling suspense story with a strong, but very human, female protagonist, will enjoy Relative Malice.
Great title by the way. Is there a story behind it?
Average Review. Novels portal. More filters. Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa as. The use of -too- many characters was also problematic for me. Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. The estranged brother of the slain husband See what I did there?
I think anyone who reads the book will understand it and enjoy the connection to the story. Is this a sequel?
With no bodies and no solid evidence of foul play, the police refuse to investigate. But someone is willing to kill to protect his secret.
This is the first paper to incorporate malice into the Rubinstein alternating offers bargaining game. Initially, I examine outcomes with one-sided malice, allowing one of the bargaining players to be malicious in the sense that he obtains a positive payoff in every period in which the other player does not obtain any piece of the pie. I identify a unique SPNE of the bargaining game, and find that malice confers bargaining advantage; if the respondent is malicious, this can in some cases completely erode and even reverse first mover advantage.
I then examine two-sided malice. Even with two-sided malice, the proposer may end up with a lower share than the respondent. I contrast them with the case of envious preferences. Abbink, K and B.
Avery, C and P. Beckman, S.