Remedies Outline

 
REMEDIES IRBY SPRING 2016
1.   Compensatory damages
To get started right away, just tap any placeholder text (such as this) and start typing.
A.      United States v. Hatahley
                     i.            The purpose of awarded damages is to restore the injured party, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been had it not been for the wrong of the other party.
                   ii.            Plaintiffs (Navajo Tribe) brought suit against the US because Agents wrongfully seized the plaintiff’s horses and donkeys and had them sold to horsemeat and glue factory.
                 iii.            Plaintiffs did not prove the replacement cost of the animals but claimed they were specially trained and irreparable. The trial court therefore did not take into account replacement cost and rejected evidence of possible replacements in the area and instead relied on testimony and gave them $395 per animal and ½ of the decreased value of their sheep, goats, and cattle since the horses and donkeys were lost. The trial court also awarded $3,500 for pain and suffering.
                 iv.            Must courts make individualized, detailed market value determinations to enable them to award damages so that the injured party is restored, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been had it not been for the wrong of the other party?
                   v.            Yes. The purpose of awarded damages is to restore the injured party, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been in had it not been for the wrong of the other party. Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiffs were entitled to the replacement cost of their animals plus the “use value” of the animals between the time the animals were seized and the time the plaintiffs reasonably could have replaced the animals.
1.       The TC should have considered evidence of replacement costs. Though specially trained are worth more, they are not irreplaceable.
2.       The TC incorrectly awarded damages for loos of use: the TC incorrectly placed equal value on all sheep, goats, and cattle, regardless of condition, age or sex of the animal, and after multiplying that value by each plaintiff’s reduction in number of sheep, goats, and cattle reduced that amount by 50% and found that amount “represents damages to the P proximately caused by deprivation of the use of P’s horses. THE FORMULA USED WAS ARBITRARY, PURE SPECULATION, AND CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.
B.      “But for principle of damages”
                     i.            Plaintiff’s “rightful” position but for the wrong is the most basic guide to compensatory damages.
                   ii.            Damage remedies are often described as “substitutionary” because the substitute dollars for what the plaintiff lost.
C.       Corrective Justice Justification
                     i.            The traditional argument for restoring Plaintiff to her rightful position was based on corrective justice. Plaintiff should not be made to suffer because of wrongdoing, and if we restore plaintiff to her rightful position, she will not suffer. To do more would leave her without complete remedy, to do more would provide a windfall.
D.      Efficiency Justification
                     i.            Proponents of the economic analysis of law argue that in most contexts the purpose of law is to maximize the value of conflicting activities.
                   ii.            Activity that is profitable even after payment of all the costs it imposes on others is said to be efficient or economical; other activity is inefficient or uneconomical. The law is said to be efficient to the extent it encourages efficient activity and discourages inefficient activity.
                 iii.            Damages should be set exactly equal to harms inflicted, and then, if the expected profit from a tort or breach of contract exceeds the later, the actor should go ahead. But for reasons to be considered later, intentional torts are generally placed outside this account.
                 iv.            The economic reason for paying damages to victims is so that they will have a reason to sue and enforce the rules against Defendants.
E.      Proving Damages
                     i.            There is no right to jury trial in tort suits against the United States.
                   ii.            Juries do not have to give reasons for their verdicts and rewards. Judges tend to uphold jury determinations on damages, even when the amount is unusually large or small and in round numbers.