Kinds of Arguments in Common Law

Lawyers “argue for a living.”
- Goal: win on behalf of a cause or client.
- Argument often has stakes (money, liberty, policy) beyond pure logical validity.
Philosophers mainly pursue logical soundness (valid inference from premises → conclusion).
Legal argument is not illogical, but routinely integrates:
- Client-centered objectives.
- Institutional constraints (procedure, jurisdiction, precedent).
- Extra-logical considerations (policy, fairness, administrability).

Term frequently used in 1L courses yet rarely unpacked.
"Simple" definition: judge-made law.
- Rules emerge from judicial decisions, not from an authoritative text (statute, constitution).
Importance in curriculum:
- Distinguished from statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis (covered elsewhere, different toolkit).
- Core subjects where it dominates: Contracts, Torts, Property.

(Instructor’s “rough cuts”; borders are porous, categories often overlap.)

Governing principle: stare decisis (“let the decision stand”).
- Once a court decides X, later courts should follow X when materially similar facts arise.
- Earlier decisions become precedents.
Strength of the obligation varies by:
- Court hierarchy (binding vs. persuasive precedent).
- Jurisdictional tradition.

Facts: Guest uses friend’s toaster → presses button normally → electrocuted.
Lawsuit: Guest sues manufacturer.
Holding of California Supreme Court (highest state court):
- Rule: Privity requirement – only the purchaser can sue for defect.
- Guest (non-purchaser) loses.
- Decision date: 1920.

Facts: Car passenger injured due to defective automobile.
Lawsuit: Passenger sues car manufacturer.
Defense’s argument from precedent:
- The 1920 toaster precedent controls → non-purchaser cannot recover.
Court’s dilemma:
1. Follow precedent strictly → passenger loses.
2. Distinguish or overrule → passenger may win.

Facial application: “Facts the same, rule the same.”
Distinguishing: Identify “salient differences” (product type, technology change, social context) so precedent is not truly “on point.”
Direct challenge / overruling: Argue that the earlier case was wrongly decided or is obsolete (e.g., safety knowledge, modern economics).

If passengers can recover:
- Damage payouts → higher manufacturer costs → higher car prices.
- Possible regressive economic impact: low-income buyers hurt most.
- Cars may become less affordable; harms social mobility.

If passengers cannot recover:
- Injured individuals bear medical bills, lost wages; may lack insurance.
- Leads to uncompensated losses → social welfare burden → inequity.

Lawyers often weave policy into precedent analysis:
- “Yes, Your Honor, you have a toaster precedent, but cars present different policy stakes (mass transportation, higher risks, etc.), so doctrine should evolve.”

Appeal to moral entitlements or inherent rights (e.g., bodily integrity, autonomy).
Often overlaps with constitutional values or natural-law reasoning.

Focus on institutional competence & efficiency:
- Can courts administer the proposed rule without excessive cost or uncertainty?
- Predictability, clarity, ease of application for lower courts and litigants.

Categories are heuristics for classroom discussion; real briefs blend them.
Legal craftsmanship involves:
1. Mapping facts to precedent.
2. Crafting policy narratives.
3. Invoking moral principles where persuasive.
4. Assuring courts of manageable implementation.
Mastery for students:
- Recognize each argumentative “dial.”
- Practice toggling among them depending on client goals and factual nuance.
Institutional backdrop: Common-law evolution happens case by case, balancing stability (stare decisis) against responsiveness (policy, moral progress, administrability).

Predictability vs. Justice: Strict precedent promotes consistency; flexible policy reasoning promotes tailored justice.
Socio-economic distribution: Liability rules shift costs between manufacturers, consumers, victims.
Judicial Role: Debate over whether judges should merely apply law (formalism) or consciously shape social outcomes (realism).