The Law of Remedies

Bob obtained Carter’s iPhone via fraud.


How does Carter right this wrong (without resorting to criminal
law)? The law of remedies is relevant here.


The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong.
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 Remedies
Compensatory 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?