Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Agenda for 11th Class Handouts Slides Readings: “Common Law II”

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Agenda for 11th Class Handouts Slides Readings: “Common Law II”"— 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 Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart

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? Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart

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? Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart


Download ppt "Agenda for 11th Class Handouts Slides Readings: “Common Law II”"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google