Every Economist who is consistent with their discipline subscribes to the subjective theory of value; how does a Judge who wants to be consistent with Economics and coincidentally also is a B.A in economics deal with an Expert Report that treats Value as Objective?
Law frequently deals with value (the value of something; at what price it would be bought or sold) but seems to take lightly the philosophical depth of the concept of Value. It seems that a judge should accept the expert opinion as is and can't consider its methodology or philosophy. We just let the expert tell us what value is without any thought. It is what it is.
Above was the previous phrasing of the question. A more general phrasing would be
How can a judge deal with methodological flaws in expert opinions?
The above is an example when the expert says the Value of X item is Y but it can't actually be bought or sold at that price. The Judge may have personal expertise in the field of the expert opinion or it can be common knowledge. Do we just say expert opinions are what they are and we must accept at face value the least fallacious?
I am asking in the Context of how courts in Civil Law system appoint Experts.