1 / 6

Agenda for 11th Class

Agenda for 11th Class. Handouts Slides Readings: “Common Law II” 2 nd Writing Assignment Name plates Lunch sign-up Tuesday, 10/8, 12:15-1:15, Law Library 214 Finders Common Law Langridge v Levy Winterbottom v Wright. Assignment for Next Class.

joeyc
Download Presentation

Agenda for 11th Class

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda for 11th Class • Handouts • Slides • Readings: “Common Law II” • 2nd Writing Assignment • Name plates • Lunch sign-up • Tuesday, 10/8, 12:15-1:15, Law Library 214 • Finders • Common Law • Langridge v Levy • Winterbottom v Wright

  2. Assignment for Next Class • Review any questions from today’s assignment that we don’t discuss in class • Read “Common Law II” packet • Questions to think about / Short papers • Everyone should be prepared to discuss all the questions on the last page of the “Common Law I” handout • Mandatory writing • Group 5. Qs 1 & 4 • Group 6. Qs 2 & 4 • Group 7. Qs 3 & 5 • Group 8. Qs 3 & 5 • Optional writing -- All questions that are not mandatory • 2nd Writing Assignment • Due Friday, 10/11 at 5PM

  3. Review of Last Class • Finders • Holding stated in Armory v Delamirie • Does not cover all future possible cases (e.g. finder v finder) • May need to be modified to cover new situations (e.g. finding on private property) • Theory of common law • Each court can only decide case in front of it • No power to set rules for future cases • That’s a legislative function • Each court must decide case in way that the OUTCOME is consistent with prior cases • Need not be consistent with all the WORDS in the prior cases • So can create an exception to rule that finder has right superior to all but rightful owner to cover finding on private property • That is consistent with OUTCOME in Armory v Delamirie, because that finding did not happen on private property • It is not consistent with the WORDS in Armory v Delamrie, because…

  4. Common Law Cases • Langridge v Levy • Father purchased gun. • Seller stated & warranted that gun was safe • Implicit that seller knew gun was not safe • Son was injured and sued • Court: Son can recover damages from seller • Injured person cannot sue for breach of contract unless s/he was a party to the contract • “Privity of contract” rule • Exception for fraud where person making misrepresentation knew another might be harmed • Winterbottom v Wright • Wright supplied mail coaches to Postmaster • Contract required them to be “safe” • Atkinson contracted with Postmaster to supply drivers • Winterbottom was employed by Atkinson • Winterbottom was injured, allegedly because the coach was not safe • Court: Winterbottom cannot recover from Wright • Because of privity of contract rule

  5. Questions • 1. The judges were concerned that if they allowed the plaintiff to prevail in Winterbottom v Wright there would be “the most absurd and outrageous consequences” and “an infinity of actions.” What sort of cases were they concerned to prevent? Why? • 2. The case most favorable to the plaintiff is Levy v Langridge. If you were the plaintiff’s lawyer in Winterbottom v Wright, how would you have used that case to argue that the defendant in this case should be liable to your client? If you were the defendant’s lawyer, how would you respond? • 3. Why do you think the plaintiff won in Levy v Langridge, but the plaintiff lost in Winterbottom v Wright? Consider both legal and social reasons. • 4. What is the holding in Winterbottom v Wright? That is, state in a sentence the legal rule established by this case. • 5. Judge Rolfe says that judges should not be influenced by the hardship that the plaintiff suffers on account of the absence of a remedy. Why not? What should influence a judge? What influenced the judges in this case?

  6. Questions • 6. If Wright had sold a defective coach to Langridge, and Langridge’s wife had been injured while riding in the coach, would Wright be liable to Langridge’s wife? • 7. If the Postmaster had told Wright that the mail-coach would be used by coachmen, and Wright had said that the mail-coach could be safely used by coachmen, would Wright be liable to any coachman injured by a defective coach? • 8. If Wright had put explosives under the mail-coach seat, which had gone off while Winterbottom had been sitting on the mail-coach seat, would Wright be liable to Winterbottom?

More Related