MUSIC:  MAX BRUCH
Download
1 / 65

Status of Grading Kesler Briefs (Uranium): Available Midterms: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on

MUSIC: MAX BRUCH Violin Concerto #1 (1868) Scottish Fantasy (1880) Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (Recording 1972) Rudolf Kempe, Conductor * Kyung Wa Chung, Violin. Status of Grading Kesler Briefs (Uranium): Available Midterms: 1 st Read & Quantity Review: Complete

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Status of Grading Kesler Briefs (Uranium): Available Midterms: ' - len-morales


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

MUSIC: MAX BRUCHViolin Concerto #1 (1868)Scottish Fantasy (1880)Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (Recording 1972) Rudolf Kempe, Conductor * Kyung Wa Chung, Violin

Status of Grading

  • KeslerBriefs (Uranium): Available

  • Midterms:

    • 1st Read & Quantity Review: Complete

    • 2d Read & Comments: 2.5/21

  • Next Up: Assignment #1



Where are we1
WHERE ARE WE?

UNIT ONE COMPLETE

  • General Introduction to Legal System, Case Reading & Legal Analysis/Argument


Where are we2
WHERE ARE WE?

UNIT ONE COMPLETE

Doctrine & Policy for Two Situations:

  • First Possession: How to Acquire Property Rights in an Unowned Resource

  • Escape: How the Owner of a Resource Can Lose Property Rights by Losing Control or Possession of the Resource


Where are we3
WHERE ARE WE?

STARTING UNIT TWO

  • More Practice Applying Unit One Materials in New Situations (Whaling; Oil & Gas)

  • Addition of Doctrine & Policy for a New Situation: Claims That Courts Should Treat Industry Custom as Legally Binding

  • Addition of Approaches for Arguing Whether an Existing Set of Doctrine Should Be Extended to a New Area by Analogy


Where are we4
WHERE ARE WE?

Last Time: Intro to Whaling “Escape” Cases

  • Basic Facts of Both Taber & Bartlett:

    • Crew of 1st ship kills whale, marks, anchors, leaves

    • Whale found & taken by crew of 2d ship

  • Uncontested that Crew of 1st Ship Acquired Property Rights by Killing Whale

  • Issue Like Escape Cases: Did 1st Crew Lose Property Rights by Leaving Whale Behind?


Where are we5
WHERE ARE WE?

Last Time: Started Work on Taber

  • Applied Analysis from Mullett and Albers to Facts of Taber (DQ60)

  • Taber Parties/Court Suggested Three Possible Ways to Resolve Legal Issue:

    • Custom (where we left off)

    • Salvage

    • Common Law of Property


Taber dq61 whaling customs
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

  • Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”


Taber dq61 whaling customs1
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”From Last Time: Why did custom develop?

  • Whales often escape mortally wounded by harpoons

  • Don’t want to waste value of whale (DKNPacific)

  • If killer doesn’t arrive in time necessary for finder to capture, arrange and cut,

    • probably too far away to find whale anyway

    • F has put in signif. labor


Taber dq61 whaling customs2
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom consistent with law of escaped animals?

  • Could say returned to NL without sufficient marks or pursuit (more like Mullett than Kesler)

  • Could say by the time F cuts in:

    • F has invested a lot of labor

    • Insufficient evidence that OO had or could get control

    • Likely a lot of distance from kill to find


Taber dq61 whaling customs3
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom consistent with law of escaped animals?

  • Maybe returned to NL without sufficient marks or pursuit (more like Mullett than Kesler)

  • When F cuts in, F labor & OO claim unlikely

  • BUT

    • Could be pretty short period of time before losing property rights

    • F Aware that Another Whaler Had Some Claim


Taber dq61 whaling customs4
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom consistent with law of escaped animals?

  • Maybe Problematic Because

    • Pretty short period of time before losing property rights

    • F Aware that Another Whaler Had Some Claim

  • Might Justify b/c

    • Strong Policy to have Someone in Industry Recover Valuable Carcass if Possible

    • Any Given Whaler as Likely to be Winner as Loser (Unlike Albers/Kesler)


Taber dq61 whaling customs5
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”

Relevance to Taber?


Taber dq61 whaling customs6
Taber DQ61: Whaling Customs

Custom: If a dead whale is found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”

Relevance to Taber?

Doesn’t apply because whale not adrift.


Taber dq62
Taber DQ62

Captain Bennett of the Massachusetts:

  • Goes on board Zone with Captain Cook of Hillman to demand bone and oil.

  • Uses “violent and abusive language” to Captain Parker of Zone in Parker’s own cabin (causing Parker to throw Hillman’s anchor overboard!!)

    Significance?


Taber v jenny brief issue
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: ISSUE

Parties/Case suggest several ways to resolve issue:

  • Whaling Customs (DQ61)

  • Law of Salvage (DQ63)

  • Common Law of Property


Taber dq63 law of salvage
Taber DQ63: Law of Salvage

  • Party finds property belonging to another (OO) adrift on open seas

    • Finder recovers property & returns to OO

    • Finder then receives standard “salvage” fee from OO

  • Begins as custom, but is established as law by the time of these cases

  • Parties that regularly conduct trade on the high seas will periodically lose property to storms and wrecks, so (mostly) willingly participate in system.


Taber dq63 law of salvage1
Taber DQ63: Law of Salvage

  • Party finds property belonging to another (OO) adrift on open seas

    • Finder recovers property & returns to OO

    • Finder then receives standard “salvage” fee from OO

      Why not employed in Taber?


Taber dq63 law of salvage2
Taber DQ63: Law of Salvage

Why not employed in Taber?

  • Zone owners never claimed salvage rights

    • Zone didn’t behave like salvor (= return found goods and ask for $)

    • Rule: if try to adopt salvage property for own use, can forfeit salvage rights

  • Note: Salvage is usually for goods found adrift, so not clear should apply here anyway


Taber dq63 law of salvage3
Taber DQ63: Law of Salvage

Taber uses a comparison with the law of salvage (but not salvage itself) to support its result:

Doctrinal Rationale: Law says if property found adrift at sea, finder entitled to fee for salvage but not to property itself. Owner of property that is not adrift has an even stronger interest, so does not lose rights to finder.


Taber v jenny brief issue1
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: ISSUE

Parties/Case suggest several ways to resolve issue:

  • Whaling Customs (DQ61)

  • Law of Salvage (DQ63)

  • Common Law of Property


Taber v jenny brief holding
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: HOLDING

  • Court says OO retained property rights

    • Doesn’t apply custom or salvage.

    • Rather seems to rely on ordinary (non-animals) rule that you don’t lose property rights simply by losing control of object.

    • Applies to dead whales at least

      • where there are “clear marks of appropriation” and

      • little time passed.


Taber v jenny brief narrow holding
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Narrow Holding

  • Killer of whale doesn’t lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where:

    • killer anchors whale leaving marks indicating killer’s identity;

    • killer returns as soon as practicable to collect whale; and

    • finder of whale sees identifying marks and knows whale is less than 12 hours dead


Taber v jenny brief broader holding
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Broader Holding

  • Killer of whale doesn’t lose property rights when it leaves the body of the whale in the ocean where killer leaves marks of appropriation and is gone only for a short time.


Taber v jenny brief possible supporting policies
Taber v. Jenny BRIEF: Possible Supporting Policies

  • Rule doesn’t reward knowing finder, who had clear info whale belonged to someone else.

  • Rule rewards killer who did all in his power to mark whale and return ASAP [and thus helps protect the industry].


Taber v jenny
Taber v. Jenny

QUESTIONS?


Logistics class 20
LOGISTICS: CLASS #20

  • Ghen Briefs (Uranium): Due Thu 10/18 @ 9 p.m.

    • Look at:

      • Instructions for Briefing Trial Court Cases

      • Intro to Whaling Cases & Glossary

      • Taber Brief in Class 19 Slides & Info Memo #5

    • Don’t finalize until we’ve looked at Swift (Wed-Thu)

  • Group Assignment #2: Due Sun 10/21 @ 4 pm

    • Qs re Assignment #2?


Logistics class 201
LOGISTICS: CLASS #20

FROM NOW ON, I’LL TAKE ATTENDANCE FROM THE PODIUM & YOU WILL BE COUNTED AS LATE IF NOT HERE WHEN CLASS STARTS


Bartlett v budd brief statement of the case
Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF: Statement of the Case

  • Bartlett and others, owners of a ship (CP) whose crew killed and anchored a whale

  • sued Budd and others, owners of a ship (E) whose crew found and took the whale

  • for conversion (see last sentence of case)

  • seeking damages for the value of the whale.


Bartlett v budd brief procedural posture
Bartlett v. Budd BRIEF: Procedural Posture

Decision after a trial.

(See Briefing Instructions for Trial Court Cases)


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 64: Crew of E found “the whale adrift, the anchor not holding…” Might mean either:

  • The rope or chain connecting the anchor to the whale has broken, so the anchor is no longer attached to the whale; (OR)

  • The anchor is still attached to the whale but is no longer lodged in the seabed.


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium1
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 64: Crew of E found “the whale adrift, the anchor not holding…” Might mean either:

  • The rope or chain connecting the anchor to the whale has broken, so the anchor is no longer attached to the whale; (OR)

  • The anchor is still attached to the whale but is no longer lodged in the seabed.

    Which of these is true in Bartlett?

    How do you know?


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium2
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 64: Anchor Not Holding” Means …?

“[T]he right to this whale appears to stand on the same footing as the right to the anchor attached to it, which was very properly restored to its owner” (3d para.)

Anchor was still attached to whale but not to the sea bottom.


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium3
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 65: Key Factual Differences from Taber

(When Whale Carcass Found)

  • Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass

  • Whale Adrift

  • Longer Time Before Whale Found (Few Hours v. Next Morning)

    OTHERS?


Bartlett v budd facts
Bartlett v. Budd Facts

DQ 65: Other Factual Differences from Taber

  • Whale in Bay, Not Open Ocean (Gonzalez)

    • CP argued matters b/c custom doesn’t apply

      • Court doesn’t need to resolve

      • Finds custom doesn’t apply anyway b/c of anchor

    • Maybe Limits Where Whale Can Drift (Helps OO)

      • Could say not NL b/c some restraint

      • Could say like AR b/c prevents carcass from getting too far away


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium4
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 65: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases?

  • Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass?


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium5
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 65: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases?

  • Waif & Irons Gone from Carcass

    • Marking/Notice Less Strong

    • BUT Anchor Still Attached

  • Whale Adrift?


Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium6
Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

DQ 65: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases?

  • Whale Adrift

    • Maybe Natural Liberty

    • Increase in distance

    • Less likely OO will find

    • Less effective labor by OO

  • Longer Time Before Whale Found (Few Hours v. Next Morning)?


  • Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium7
    Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

    DQ 65: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases?

    • Longer Time Before Whale Found (Few Hours v. Next Morning)?

      • Time itself a factor in some escape cases

      • Less likely OO will return (which F may be able to determine)

      • Maybe less effective labor by OO (slower return)


    Bartlett v budd facts dqs 64 65 radium8
    Bartlett v. Budd Facts: DQs 64-65 (RADIUM)

    DQ 65: Significance of Differences Under Animals Escape Cases?

    • All Differences Make Case Stronger for Finder

    • Thus, Key Q in Bartlettis Whether Differences are Sufficient to Change Taber Result

    • Court Decides They Aren’t & Follows Taber


    Bartlett v budd whaling custom dqs 66 67 radium
    Bartlett v. Budd & Whaling Custom: DQs 66-67 (RADIUM)

    Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”

    • In Taber, custom didn’t apply b/c whale not adrift.

    • In Bartlett, whale was adrift, so why didn’t court use custom?


    Bartlett v budd whaling custom dqs 66 67 radium1
    Bartlett v. Budd & Whaling Custom: DQs 66-67 (RADIUM)

    Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”

    • In Bartlett, whale was adrift, BUT factual finding: Custom only applies if no anchor attached(so not applicable here).

  • DQ66: Custom does apply if harpoons in whale. Why is anchor different from harpoons?


  • Bartlett v budd whaling custom dqs 66 67 radium2
    Bartlett v. Budd & Whaling Custom: DQs 66-67 (RADIUM)

    Custom: If dead whale found adrift, “the finding ship may appropriate it to her own use, if those who killed it do not appear and claim it before it is cut in.”

    • DQ66: Custom only applies if no anchor attached. Custom does apply if harpoons in whale. Why is anchor different from harpoons?

    • Anchor is proof killer had actual possession of whale, and therefore earned property rights (under 1st Possession animals cases).


    Bartlett v budd whaling custom dqs 66 67 radium3
    Bartlett v. Budd & Whaling Custom: DQs 66-67 (RADIUM)

    Bartlett determines thatthere is no custom giving a dead whale found adrift with an anchor attached to the finder. The court then says (top p. 62):

    “And if it were not so, there would be great difficulty in upholding a custom that should take the property of A and give it to B under so very short and uncertain a substitute for the statute of limitations, and one so open to fraud and deceit.”

    DQ67: This Means…?


    Bartlett v budd whaling custom dqs 66 67 radium4
    Bartlett v. Budd & Whaling Custom: DQs 66-67 (RADIUM)

    “And if it were not so, there would be great difficulty in upholding a custom that should take the property of A and give it to B under so very short and uncertain a substitute for the statute of limitations, and one so open to fraud and deceit.”

    Bartlett provides first example of arguments for refusing to treat particular industry custom as law (we’ll revisit in Swift & Ghen)


    Bartlett v budd possible policy rationale
    Bartlett v. Budd: Possible Policy Rationale

    The court said that a rule that treated whales that had recently gone adrift differently from anchored whales would be imprudent because it would take property rights from the OO in a very short time period and would encourage finders to lie about what they found or to fraudulently set the whale adrift.Thus, the court held that anchored whales would remain the property of the OO for some period of time even when the anchor didn’t hold.


    Taber bartlett the escaped carcass issue
    Taber & Bartlett :The “Escaped” Carcass Issue

    • No Relevant Custom

    • Salvage Inapplicable

    • Anchored Whale Remains Property of OO

      • Forever? Taber & Bartlett = Short Time Frame

      • Result unclear if longer time frame; policy against wasting resource might change result


    Taber bartlett the escaped carcass issue1
    Taber & Bartlett :The “Escaped” Carcass Issue

    Treat as Escape Cases w Info About:

    • Marking & Finder’s Knowledge

    • Time/Distance

    • Labor/Industry


    Taber bartlett the escaped carcass issue2
    Taber & Bartlett :The “Escaped” Carcass Issue

    QUESTIONS?


    Final exam questions 1 2
    FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS 1 & 2

    • Single Fact Pattern for Both

    • Will Involve Type of Property Not Explicitly Covered in Course

    • Samples from All Prior Exams Available Now on Course Page (My Comments & Best Student Answers Posted Soon)


    Final exam questions 1 21
    FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS 1 & 2

    • XQ1: “Assuming Animals Cases Apply, Discuss Who Should Get Property Rights?”

      • “Animals Cases” = Unit One + Whaling Cases

      • Basically Issue-Spotter Like Midterm, But Need to Be Creative Applying Doctrine

      • Tests One or More of Three Major Categories:

        • First Possession

        • Escape

        • Custom (Never Alone)


    Final exam questions 1 22
    FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS 1 & 2

    • XQ2: “Discuss Whether Animals Cases Are Good Tools to Use in New Scenario”

      • Testing Ability to Analyze When/Whether Analogy is Useful

      • Should Utilize Three Approaches We’ll Work With in Unit Two (& Group Assignment #3)

        • Significance of Factual Similarities/Differences

        • Usefulness of Doctrine

        • Usefulness of Alternatives


    Final exam questions 1 23
    FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS 1 & 2

    • To Do Under Exam Conditions:

      • Closed Book Except for Syllabus

      • Hard to Do XQ2 if You Haven’t Done XQ1 First

      • For Each Q Alone:

        • 20 Minutes to Read & Outline

        • 50 Minutes to Write

      • To Do XQ1 & XQ2 Together

        • 40 Minutes to Read & Outline

        • 100 Minutes to Write (1 hour 40 Minutes)


    Argument by analogy
    Argument By Analogy

    We’ve seen that we could use the escaping animals cases to resolve cases like Taber and Bartlett (as in XQ1), but should we?


    Argument by analogy1
    Argument By Analogy

    We’ve seen that we could use the escaping animals cases to resolve cases like Taber and Bartlett (as in XQ1), but should we?

    In other words, use of the analogy is possible, but is it a good idea (XQ2)?


    Argument by analogy2
    Argument By Analogy

    Three Common Approaches Described in Course Materials:

    • Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences

    • Usefulness of Doctrine

    • Usefulness of Alternatives


    Argument by analogy3
    Argument By Analogy

    Applying Three Common Approaches Described in Course Materials (OXYGEN):

    • Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences (DQ68)

    • Usefulness of Doctrine (DQ69)

    • Usefulness of Alternatives (DQ70)


    Argument by analogy 1 factual similarities differences
    Argument By Analogy1. Factual Similarities/Differences

    • Identify Similarity or Difference Between the Two Contexts

      • Factual not Legal (Layperson Could See)

      • Compare Overall Situations (v. Individual Cases)

        • Escaping Animals v. Escaping Whale Carcasses

        • NOT Facts in Bartlett v. Facts in Albers


    Argument by analogy 1 factual similarities differences1
    Argument By Analogy1. Factual Similarities/Differences

    • Identify Similarity or Difference Between the Two Contexts

    • Explain Why the Similarity (or Difference) You Identified Suggests that the Legal Treatment of the Two Contexts Should be the Same (or Different)


    Argument by analogy sample factual similarity mobility
    Argument By AnalogySample Factual Similarity: Mobility

    • Both contexts involve property that can move (w/o human intervention) away from where the owner left it.


    Argument by analogy sample factual similarity mobility1
    Argument By AnalogySample Factual Similarity: Mobility

    • Both contexts involve property that can move (w/o human intervention)

    • Escaping ACs good for Taber context b/c specifically designed to decide when to return mobile property.

      • Address relevant Qs like extent of OO’s investment, OO’s labor to control or retrieve property, and whether F would have reason to believe another person has a strong claim.

      • Can then argue re relative importance of these Qs


    Argument by analogy4
    Argument By Analogy

    OXYGEN DQ68:

    Additional Arguments from Factual Similarities?


    Argument by analogy sample factual difference living dead
    Argument By AnalogySample Factual Difference: Living/Dead

    • Land animals are alive when they “escape”; whale carcasses are not.


    Argument by analogy sample factual difference living dead1
    Argument By AnalogySample Factual Difference: Living/Dead

    • Land animals are alive when they “escape”; whale carcasses are not.

    • Some concepts from ACs will not work well in Taber context b/c they assume property was alive at escape.

      • E.g., “provide for itself” & “intent to return”

      • Can then argue re relative importance of these factors. Note ACs don’t have to fit 100% to be reasonable option.


    Argument by analogy5
    Argument By Analogy

    Bottom Line: Not asking if ACs are a perfect tool for the new context, but discussing how good a tool they are.


    ad