80 likes | 98 Views
The Law of Remedies. Bob obtained Carter ’ s iPhone via fraud. The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong . How does Carter right this wrong (without resorting to criminal law)? The law of remedies is relevant here.
E N D
The Law of Remedies • Bob obtained Carter’s iPhone via fraud. • The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong. • How does Carter right this wrong (without resorting to criminal law)? 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.
Classification of Available Remedies Compensatory Remedies - e.g. damages • Compensate for P’s loss • Substitutionary/Legal Coercive Remedies – e.g., Injunctions • Force D to do or refrain from doing something • Specific/Equitable Declaratory Remedies – e.g., declaratory judgments Restitutionary Remedies – e.g., rescission, constructive trust • Force D to disgorge unjust gain • Both specific/subsitutionary & legal/equitable Punitive Remedies - e.g. punitive damages • Punish/Deter behavior • Legal Ancillary Remedies - e.g., contempt, garnishment, execution, atty’s fees • Aid in the enforcement of other remedies
Possible Remedies or Combinations of Remedies Available to Carter • Some may depend on nature of Bob’s conduct or theory on which Carter sues • Some may depend on practical concerns • Often different remedies will get Carter to the same place but in different ways, so special concerns of the client may matter. Or sometimes different remedies can matter a lot re P’s recovery.
According to Hatahley: fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is: • To restore P/injured party to the position they would have been in but for the D’s/other party’s wrong. • Aka “rightful position rule” • Does the lower court just ignore this rule?
What will district court have to do differently on remand? • 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 • What DCT will have to do:
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 plaintiff’s lost? • Example: Why can’t the Hatahley judge award $395 even if he knows the value of the plaintiffs’ horses is $300?
One-satisfaction rule – 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. • Assume Ps did sue for breach of contract. 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?