Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 181 Views
The Law of Remedies. Linduh stole Carter ’ s iPod Touch The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong How does Carter right this wrong? The law of remedies is relevant here.
E N D
The Law of Remedies • Linduh stole Carter’s iPod Touch • The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong • How does Carter right this wrong? The law of remedies is relevant here. • Remedies do not determine whether a law/right was violated. Rather, remedies are the means by which substantive rights are given their effect. • This class involves the law of remedies. • Don’t focus on substantive law issues (i.e., was there a violation) but on what remedies are available for that assumed violation • Asking what remedies are available has both a substantive AND a practical side
Classification of Available Remedies • Compensatory Remedies - e.g. damages • Coercive Remedies – e.g., Injunctions • Declaratory Remedies – e.g., declaratory judgments • Restitutionary Remedies – e.g., rescission, constructive trust • Punitive Remedies - e.g. punitive damages • Ancillary Remedies - e.g. contempt, attorneys fees
What is the is the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages according to Hatahley?
What will the Hatahley district court have to do differently on remand? • What it will have to do: • Ascertain market/sale value of like horses w/similar training • Must show causation between loss of horses and loss of use claims (livestock & other losses) • Calculate P&S for each individual P • What the DCT did: • Set value of destroyed horses - $395 (based on P’s personal testimony & trade value w/ other livestock among Navajo) • Loss of use of horses – valued livestock, then gave ½ total diminution of livestock herds from 1952-57, applied to all Ps • $3500 pain & suffering to each P
Why should courts go to all this trouble? • Why isn’t a reasonably good faith approximation of damages enough under the rightful position rule? • For that matter why can’t a court intentionally award more than what was lost? • Example: Why can’t the Hatahley judge award $395 even if he knows the value of the plaintiffs’ horses is $300?
Corrective Justice Rationale • P shouldn’t suffer for D’s wrongdoing. • Courts should not undercompensate P. But P should not get a windfall at D’s expense. • Compensation begins to look like punishment if it exceeds actual damages. • The goal of damages is to fairly compensate P for a specific wrong done to him/her.
Distributive Justice Rationale • Profitable activity confers benefits on society • The law should encourage profitable activity even when that activity is unlawful as long as the violator compensates the victim for their losses. • Why? Because acts that are profitable even after the injured party is compensated STILL confer a benefit on society. • Setting damages too low encourages Ds to act unlawfully when it is inefficient to do so • Setting damages to high encourages D’s to obey the law when it is inefficient to do so • The goal of damages is to deter inefficient conduct & encourage efficient (profitable) activity
Corollary to Rightful Position Rule • Assume the Hatahley Ps had a contract allowing them to graze cattle on federal land. If the round-up had occurred without notice, plaintiffs could have sued for breach of contract in addition to trespass. • If Ps were fully compensated for their losses after suing for breach of contract, could they later file a lawsuit seeking damages under a trespass theory?
