Law & The Legal System Final Exam

Property Law

The word “property” is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong.

Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership, or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes.

1935: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals on property

“We have lately affirmed the doctrine that these constitutional guaranties of the right of property and individual freedom of contract must yield to the common good and general welfare. The police power extends to all the great public needs; all personal as well as property rights are held subject to this reserve element of sovereignty. Changing conditions necessarily impose a greater demand upon this reserve power for such reasonable supervision and regulation as may be essential for the common good and welfare. The economic interests of the state may justify its exercise, notwithstanding that the expedient resorted to invades the domain of property rights or of contract; generally, it may be exerted whenever necessary for the preservation of the public health, morals, comfort, order and safety. Circumstances may so change in time or so differ in space as to clothe with a public interest what at other times or in other places would be a matter of purely private concern.”

Examples in intangible property

goodwill and reputation

Goodwill

The favor which the management of a business wins from the public. The fixed and favorable consideration of customers arising from established and well-conducted business. The favorable consideration shown by the purchasing public to goods known to emanate from a particular source. 

Reputation

Estimation in which one is held; the character imputed to a person by those acquainted with him. That by which we are known and is the total sum of how we are seen by others. General opinion, good or bad, held of a person by those of the community in which he resides. “Character” is made up of the things an individual actually is and does whereas “reputation” is what people think an individual is and what they say about him.

Types of property

• Personal Property: “moveables”

• Real Property: land including buildings & fixtures 

• Intellectual Property: intangibles

Real Property

 property ownership is composed of a bundle of rights. An owner can possess all the rights in the bundle or not. The owner might have sold some of the rights in the bundle to other people. That bundle includes the right to possess the property as well as control who enters the property, for example. 

Real Property rights include not only surface level rights, but also might include air rights, subsurface rights, water rights, mineral rights, etc. 

Easements

limited right to use some or all of the real property for some specific purpose

Example: a right of way to use someone’s property as a driveway to get to your own parcel 

Bailment

transfer of possession but not ownership. a delivery of goods or personal property, by one person to another, in trust for the execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purpose of the trust.

Kinds of Intellectual Property

Trademarks, copyright, patent, trade secrets

Trademarks

a distinctive mark of authenticity, through which the products of particular manufacturers or the vendible commodities of particular merchants may be distinguished from fakes/knockoffs

Copyright

intangible right to author or originator of certain literary or artistic production, limited time period

• Public domain

Patents

grant of exclusive right to inventor to make, use, and sell invention for limited time period, non-obvious

Trade Secrets

state law, not federal

Jenna Page and Bill Dash

Jenna Page is a rock musician who is most famous for a song she wrote and recorded, “Red, White, and Blue.” Page holds the copyright to the song’s lyrics. The song’s refrain repeats the colors of the flag, “Red, White, and Blue,” and then makes the song’s true point: “Red, White, and Through with Blue.” The song is critical of the United States and become an anthem among those in the anti-establishment movement.

Page just discovered that Billy Dash, a relatively unknown young singer, has produced and is successfully marketing a rock song entitled “Red, White, and Blue Through and Through.” Dash’s patriotic song celebrates America’s freedom and traditions. The music appears to be identical to the original, but the words are different.

The following statutes and cases may apply to this problem. Cases have been altered for convenience

and brevity.

17 U.S.C. §106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive

rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) …

(3) To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other

transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion

pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;…

17 U.S.C. §107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106…, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including

such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for

purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom

use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made

of a work in a particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature

or for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a

whole; and

(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Contract

an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.

Essentials of a contract

• (1) offer and acceptance 

• (2) competent parties, 

• (3) legal subject matter,  

• (4) consideration, 

• (5) [simultaneous] mutuality of agreement [ex., offer and acceptance], and   

• (6) mutuality of [future] obligation

Consideration

• The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract. The reason or material cause of a contract. Some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.

Offer/Acceptance

If a “promise” is made in exchange for performance, a unilateral contract (implied contract) is created.

If a “promise” is made by both parties, either oral or in writing, then a bilateral contract (express contract) is made.

Adhesionary Contract

An adhesion contract exists if the parties are of such disproportionate bargaining power that the party of weaker bargaining strength could not have negotiated for variations in the terms of the adhesion contract. Adhesion contracts are generally in the form of a standardized contract form that is entirely prepared and offered by the party of superior bargaining strength to consumers of goods and services.

Unconscionable Contract

A defense against the enforcement of a contract or portion of a contract.  If a contract is unfair or oppressive to one party in a way that suggests abuses during its formation, a court may find it unconscionable and refuse to enforce it.  A contract is most likely to be found unconscionable if both unfair bargaining and unfair substantive terms are shown.  An absence of meaningful choice by the disadvantaged party is often used to prove unfair bargaining.

Equity Doctrine

Unjust Enrichment

Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment occurs when Party A confers a benefit upon Party B without Party A receiving the proper restitution required by law. This typically occurs in a contractual agreement when Party A fulfills his/her part of the agreement and Party B does not fulfill his/her part of the agreement.

• Recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment typically occurs where there was no contract between the parties, or a contract turns out to be invalid. [so contract formation failed, void, or voidable and was voided]

Vitiating Factors

Void and Voidable

Void contract

one which, although there has been (apparently) a contract formed by offer, acceptance and consideration, does not in fact create any right or obligations at all.  It is void ab initio (from the beginning) and so it was not effective at any time. (Mistake or Illegality)

Voidable contract

one which was validly formed by offer, acceptance and consideration, but has a defect in it from the moment of formation.  The contract is valid to create rights and obligations, but is liable to be made void.

• Misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, and unconscionable bargains, also legal incapacity (minor age)

Hodge v. Evans Financial Corp

• US Court of Appeals – DC Circuit – 1985

• P was working in Pittsburgh.  P and D had two meetings in D.C., after the second D orally offered P a job.  D later fired P which P alleges violates the oral promise that the job would be ‘permanent’ – meaning until retirement.

• Court interprets this to mean that the contract was for a fixed period of around 11 years given P’s age and expected retirement age.   

• DC Statute of Frauds: An action may not be brought…upon an agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which the action is brought, or a memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, which need not state the consideration and signed by the party to be charged therewith or a person authorized by him.

• Therefore, the oral contract for employment until retirement violates the statute of frauds

• Employed until retirement v. until you die

• Contract for life – does not fall within the statute of frauds because a person could theoretically die within a year and therefore fulfill the contract appropriately, this holds even after the person survives for beyond the 1 year period

• Contract until retirement – does fall within the statute of frauds because person is expected to work until retirement, if he dies prematurely then contract is not fully performed.  Not valid unless in writing. 

Legal Maxim

for every right, there is a remedy; where there is no remedy, there is no right.

Three categories of remedies

Damages, Equitable Remedies, and Declaratory Remedies

Compensatory Damages

When a contract is breached, the recognized remedy for an owner is recovery of damages that result directly from the breach (also known as "compensatory damages"). Damages may include the cost to repair or complete the work in accordance with the contract documents, or the value of lost or damaged work.

Special Damages (Consequential Damages)

 In addition to the compensatory damage, an owner can also seek for special damages, which include loss of product and loss of profit or revenue. This may be recovered if it is determined such damages were reasonably foreseeable or "within the contemplation of the parties" at the time of contract formation

Punitive Damages

damages designed to punish a defendant for particularly egregious tortious behavior.

Incidental Damages

closely associated with compensatory damages, are costs used to prevent further losses that result from the breach of contract on behalf of the nonbreaching party. 

For example, a company breaches a hiring contract that it signed with a prospective employee. The expenditures that the employee spent searching for another job are an element of incidental damages.

Nominal Damages

damages of minimal value intended to keep the lawsuit alive because a plaintiff must seek a remedy even if all they want is the court to say the plaintiff was right and the defendant was wrong 

Liquidated Damages

refer to a predetermined amount of money that must be paid by the breaching party, and they are fixed numbers agreed upon by both parties during the formation of a contract. Courts enforcing a liquidated damages provision would consider the reasonableness of its amount, specifically if it approximates the amount of actual damages caused, and the ascertain. Failing to meet this condition would turn liquidated damages into an unenforceable penalty that inequitably benefits the party receiving liquidated awards.

Statutory Damages

damages specified within a statute, typically specifying the amount of damages in a given situation.

Equitable Remedies

no jury, judge decides (traditional remedy at equity)

Injunction

the court ordering someone to do or not do something

Accounting for profits

is an inquiry into the amount of gains that the defendant benefited from his or her wrongs. Accounting is more commonly practiced in cases against a fiduciary or breach of contract in which the ascertainment of the defendant's profits is important

Specific performance

refers to the court compelling the defendant to perform certain actions. This type of equitable remedy is limited in scope because in contract laws for example, issuing specific performance would require the property that gives rise to the lawsuit to be unique, or that it is more practical than for the defendant to compensate the plaintiff by paying for compensatory damages.

Reformation

or referred to as rectification, is when the court practices remedies by correcting the writings of a contract. Under two circumstances, reformation applies either when (1) the writing does not reflect the agreement made between the parties, or (2) one party signed the contract in the first place because of manipulation by fraud planned and executed by the other party

Equitable Rescission

gives the innocent plaintiff the right to undo or rescind a contract when the plaintiff entered the contract as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, etc., or when the contract has been breached by the other party. To restore the situation to what it was before the contract, both parties need to return what they have received from the exchange.

Declaratory judgment

Modern remedy from statutory law. is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. …is generally considered a statutory remedy. Is generally distinguished from an advisory opinion because the latter does not resolve an actual case or controversy. Declaratory judgments can provide legal certainty to each party in a matter when this could resolve or assist in a disagreement. A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit but the lawsuit has not yet been filed.

Fletcher v. Peck

In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land grant

awarding territory to four companies. The following year, the

legislature voided the law and declared all rights and claims

under it to be invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that

was part of the original legislative grant. He then sold the land

to Robert Fletcher three years later, claiming that the land

sales had been legitimate. Fletcher argued that since the

original sale of the land had been declared invalid, Peck had

no legal right to sell the land and thus committed a breach of

contract.

The legislature’s repeal of the law was

unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10, Clause I

(the Contract Clause) of the United States

Constitution. The majority concluded the sale

between Fletcher and Peck was a binding contract,

which under the Contract Clause cannot be

invalidated even if it is illegally secured.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward

• Dartmouth College v. Woodward: 1819

• In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to

change Dartmouth College-- a privately funded

institution--into a state university. The legislature

changed the school's corporate charter by transferring the

control of trustee appointments to the governor. In an

attempt to regain authority over the resources of

Dartmouth College, the old trustees filed suit against

William H. Woodward, who sided with the new

appointees.

The Contract Clause (Art 1, Section 10, Clause 1)

prohibits states from violating contracts with private or

public corporations. In a 5-to-1 decision, the Court

concluded that the Contract Clause applies to private as

well as public corporations. The Court held that the

College's corporate charter qualified as a contract

between private parties, with which the legislature could

not interfere. The fact that the government had

commissioned the charter did not transform the school

into a civil institution.

Charles River Bridge Case

In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature incorporated the

Charles River Bridge Company to construct a bridge and

collect tolls. In 1828, the legislature established the

Warren Bridge Company to build a free bridge nearby.

Unsurprisingly, the new bridge deprived the old one of

traffic and tolls. The Charles River Bridge Company filed

suit, claiming the legislature had defaulted on its initial

contract.

In a 5-to-2 decision, the Court held that the state had not

entered a contract that prohibited the construction of

another bridge on the river at a later date. The Court held

that the legislature neither gave exclusive control over

the waters of the river nor invaded corporate privilege by

interfering with the company's profit-making ability. In

balancing the rights of private property against the need

for economic development, the Court found that the

community interest in creating new channels of travel

and trade had priority.

Cerkez v. Gloucester City

“We consolidate these back-to-back appeals for the purpose of issuing a single opinion. The central issue in both cases is whether defendant municipalities, Gloucester City and Borough of Brooklawn, have an implied contractual (seller-consumer) relationship with the plaintiff residents to whom they distribute metered potable water. The answer to that question, in turn, determines whether plaintiffs may sue defendants under a breach-of-contract theory on the grounds that the water distributed to them contains a high level of contaminants.”

“Considering both the developing caselaw and the current pertinent statutes, we conclude that running water is not a commercial product but rather a public resource held in trust for residents. Under that paradigm, towns distributing running water to homes and businesses are performing a governmental service. They are not tantamount to private companies that sell water for profit. We thus conclude that as a matter of law, charging a fee to defray the costs for providing this governmental service does not automatically create an implied contract between municipalities and residents.1 Accordingly, there is no basis upon which defendant municipalities may be held liable under a contract or promissory estoppel theory.”

Legality Principle

“no crime without law, nor punishment without law” – 3 principles (void of vagueness, rule of strict construction, and ex post facto laws)

Criminal liability and punishment can be based only upon a prior legislative enactment of a prohibition that is expressed with adequate precision and clarity

Void for Vagueness (Due Process Clause)

“Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement…”

Rule of Strict Construction

ambiguity is where two or more interpretations of statutory language are reasonable. When a criminal statute contains an ambiguity, courts apply the rule of strict construction, which directs that an ambiguity in a penal statute be resolved against the state and in favor of the defendant

Ex Post Facto Laws

constitutional prohibition that invalidates (a) “every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. (b) every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. (c) every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” = ban on retroactivity

Common Law Crime

historical, but no longer 

• Example - Kanavan’s case (Maine 1821): defendant dropped the body of a deceased child into the Kennebec River. No statute or prior criminal case covered the fact pattern, but the highest court of Maine affirmed the man’s conviction as a violation of the common law. 

early criminal law codes (statutes)

often had sweeping catch all phrases: “A person, who willfully and wrongfully commits any act, which seriously injures the person or property of another, or which seriously disturbs or endangers the public peace or health, or which openly outrages public decency or is injurious to public morals … is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Later statutes

have typically gotten rid of such sweeping catchalls, but instead statutes have ballooned in size as every more specific crimes are added 

Elements of criminal liability: corpus delicti

• (1) actus reus: 

• (2) mens rea:

• (3) concurrence:

• (4) causation:

• (5) harm:

Actus Reus: criminal act

• (1) voluntary bodily movements: without coercion and with awareness of action

• (2) omission in the face of a duty to act: failure to perform legal duty (register handgun, pay taxes) or failure to intervene to prevent serious harm when special relationship (parents and children); OR

• (3) possession: possession of stolen goods, for instance

Mens rea: criminal intent

• Criminal intent and criminal motive are different things. Intent refers to the mental purpose or desire to commit a certain act; motive refers to the cause, or reason why the act was committed.

• Both need to make sense for prosecution’s theory of the case, though prosecution need prove only intent 

Purposefully

intend to cause this result

Knowingly

know result will be caused

Recklessly

disregarded the risk of the result

Negligently

unconsciously created risk that the reasonable person would have been aware of and not risked

Transferred Intent

mean to kill A, fire gun, kill B, still purposeful regarding B, not reckless

Concurrence

• Criminal intent must cause criminal action

• The union of the two, intent and action

Causation

Need both factual cause and legal (proximate) cause

Factual cause

“but for” defendant’s action, the result would not have occurred

Legal (proximate) cause

is it fair to connect defendant’s action with the result? Were there intervening actions, or is the result just completely unexpected from the action?

Harm

injury to another

• May be physical

• May be mental

• May be to another person

• May be to the community

• May be to the person causing the harm

Inchoate Crimes

beginning or incomplete (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy)

Attempt

some step or substantial steps that constitute perpetration of the criminal act required

Solicitation

intent to induce another to commit a crime, solicit as assassin to murder, solicit a prostitute for sex

Conspiracy

agreement between 2 or more people for the purpose of committing a crime, agreement plus some step

Defenses to criminal liability

• Alibi 

• Affirmative Defenses: 

  • Justification Defenses

  • Excuse Defenses 

Affirmative Defense

• Burden of production: duty to produce evidence

• Burden of proof: defendant must prove the defense 

• For a defense that is NOT affirmative, the defendant can simply raise it attempting to undercut the prosecution’s case; for affirmative defenses they need to produce evidence and prove the defense for the defense to matter/count

Justification Defenses

defendant admits responsibility for action that occurred but under circumstances, act was not criminal

• (1) Self-Defense

• (2) Consent

• (3) Execution of Public Duties

Self Defense

use force to repel an imminent, unprovoked attack, in the reasonable belief of potential serious injury (retreat doctrine, castle doctrine)

Retreat Doctrine

traditional self-defense, NOT part of Stand-Your-Ground, when outside castle if threatened and can safely retreat then must do so and call law enforcement

Castle Doctrine

no need to retreat, easier to use deadly force, traditionally ONLY home, some states expanded to office/car

Consent

limited applicability, must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent. Example: professional boxers hitting each other in match

CANNOT consent to being murdered = case in Germany a few years ago, person consented to being murdered and eaten. Despite proof of this, the murderous cannibal is spending life in prison

Execution of Public Duties

Law enforcement

Excuse Defenses

defendant admits (or defense on their behalf) that behavior was wrong, but under the circumstances not responsible for the behavior

• (1) duress

• (2) intoxication

• (3) age

• (4) insanity

Duress

limited, involves threat of serious, imminent harm to oneself, where the act is less serious than the threatened harm

Commit robbery or be murdered = duress

Kill another or be murdered = not allowed as duress

Intoxication

(1) voluntary: never complete defense, may mitigate offense charge, and/or potential punishment

(2) involuntary: can be a complete defense

Age

juveniles are not handled through the criminal justice system, but rather through juvenile justice = unless charged as an adult

Insanity

mental illness and insanity are NOT the same. Insanity is a legal term, mental illness is a medical term.

M’Naghten Test (1843): person did not know what they were doing (i.e. hallucinations) OR did know what they were doing but was unable to appreciate what they were doing was wrong

Cell Phone Manslaughter Problem

State v. O’Donnell

"In this appeal, the Court considers whether the bribery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2, applies to a candidate for political office who is not an incumbent and is ultimately not elected. Defendant Jason O'Donnell was a candidate for mayor of Bayonne in 2018. During the campaign, he allegedly accepted $10,000 in cash in a paper Baskin-Robbins bag from an individual. In exchange for the money, the State asserts, defendant promised to appoint the individual as tax counsel for the city. The State charged defendant under the bribery statute. Defendant did not win the election. He contends the law does not apply to him because it does not cover candidates who accept improper payments but are not elected."

"The bribery statute applies to any "person" who accepts an improper benefit -- incumbents,
candidates who win, and candidates who lose. N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2. The statute also expressly states that it is no defense to a prosecution if a person "was not qualified to act." Ibid. So even if a candidate is unable to follow through on a corrupt promise, the language of the bribery statute makes it a crime to accept cash payments for a promise of future performance. The bribery statute's history, relevant caselaw, and commentary from the Model Penal Code, on which the statute is modeled, confirm that the law extends to candidates"

Torts

personal injury and property damage

Civil Law Wrongs (as opposed to Criminal Law Wrongs)

Injury and Damage do not have to be actual physical harm, but rather just interference with one’s rights regarding oneself and one’s property

Contracts: breach of contract is not a legal wrong. But, inducing another to breach a contract is a tort

Similar to criminal law, however focused on providing financial recompense to the injured party rather than retribution/rehabilitation in relation to injurer 

How are criminal law and tort law similar?

• Tort Law: Punitive Damages – punishment

• Criminal Law: Restitution – financial recompense to victim

Eggshell Rule

tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from their tortious activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition)

Crumbling Skull Rule

where a plaintiff had a condition or injury that predates the tort and would have naturally deteriorated or worsened over time, the defendant is not responsible to the degree that the condition or injury would have naturally worsened over time. … only liable for the degree the injury was worsened or the hastening or acceleration of the damage caused by the tort.

Res judicata

the civil law version of double jeopardy

Tort categories

• intentional acts, 

• negligent acts

• strict liability

Negligence

(1) defendant had a duty to act in a certain way, 

(2) defendant breached that duty, 

(3) causation: actual cause and proximate cause 

(4) harm

Typical standard of care: ordinary care

“reasonable person” standard

[there are special duties that can also exist – such as between a parent and a child, etc.]

[the duty as represented by the standard of care, is essentially to not act negligently. And the breach is when one acts negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposely in a way the violates that duty/standard of care toward another person]

Standard of Care

hypothetical reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances

• Exceptions: 

• if actor has relevant superior knowledge that will be included in the C/RP Test

• knowledge of an isolated fact will also be included (that a certain intersection in dangerous)

• physical characteristics of the defendant are also included in the test (visual or auditory impairment, wheelchair user)

Actual Cause

“but for” – the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s action

Proximate Cause

legal cause; “That which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.” – complicated, but relates to temporal proximity between different causes, and significance of contribution to result (dominant cause) 

• Essentially, are the cause and effect sufficiently linked that it’s fair to connect them and view defendant as responsible  

Defenses to Liability

• Contributory negligence

• Comparative negligence

• Consent

• Immunity

• Necessity

Contributory negligence

if plaintiff was responsible for injury in any way (even only 1% responsible) then no possibility of recovery - barred