The Law of Remedies Bob obtained Carter’s iPhone via fraud. The law of torts tells us that this...
7
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.
Transcript of The Law of Remedies Bob obtained Carter’s iPhone via fraud. The law of torts tells us that this...
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 RemediesCompensatory 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?
