Remedies (Law 669)
Summer 2011
Jenelle Marsh
Office: Room 260
Office Hours: Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 4:45
Telephone: 348-5751 (office), 394-9109 (texts are welcome)
Email: jmarsh@law.ua.edu
Grading
The final exam will be your only grade in the course. It will be a floating exam,
which will float for the exam period. You may use any notes you’ve created, material
from the book with proper attribution, any material from class, additional cases assigned,
and articles assigned. (Of course, you must attribute to others the work of theirs that you
use.) You may not use notes prepared by others, including commercial outlines.
You may check the exam out for 6 hours, but I expect you will spend about 3
hours on the exam. You are required to use ExamSoft. Failure to obey the directions by
not using ExamSoft or running over the character limit will result in at least a .3 penalty
on your final grade. The exam will have 4 or more questions on it, but you need answer
only 3. All 3 will be of equal weight. You are limited to 10,000 characters (about 4
pages, double-spaced) on each question.
There will be exercises which you should prepare to use in class discussions. I
reserve the right to “bump up” 1/3 of a letter grade those who have exceptional class
participation and “bump down” those who are often unprepared or appear to be
unprepared or do not at least from time-to-time participate in class discussion. Generally,
a student who does not average making at least one contribution a week will get a
“bump down.” Lawyers have to talk.
Books
Required readings will include cases and material from Understanding Remedies and
edited cases supplied to you.
Attendance
The Law School attendance policy will be in effect. We meet for 1400 minutes. Students
missing more than 300 minutes will be withdrawn from the class. If you come in late, you
are responsible for recording your time of arrival on the roll. If you leave early, you are
responsible for recording your time of departure on the roll. The class will meet 70
minutes each day.
ADA Accommodations
The Law School is committed to meeting the needs of students with physical, learning,
and other disabilities, and provides appropriate accommodations and services tailored to
each person’s specific requirements. The Law School’s associate deans and the
University’s Office of Disability Services work together to help individuals with disabilities
achieve and maintain individual autonomy. Students with disabilities are
encouraged to contact the Office of Disabilities Services so that the individual’s needs
for support services can be elevated and accommodated in a timely manner.
Laptop Policy
Laptops may only be used in class for purposes dealing with the class.
Day 1 – May 26 --An Introduction to Remedies
I. Goals of Remedies
A Goals of Tort Remedies
i. Prevent a Tort from Occurring
ii. Restore the Status Quo
iii. Compensate the P for the Loss
iv. Deter Future Torts
v. Establish, Declare, and Vindicate the P’s Rights
vi. Punish Wrongdoers
B. Goals in Contract Breaches
i. Fulfill P’s Expectancy of Gain
ii. Special damages to Restore P’s Losses and Reliance Expenditures
iii. Restitution
iv. Punish or Deter the D
v. Declare or Terminate Parties’ Contractual Rights or Duties
C. Goals for Unjust Enrichment
i. Restore the Benefits D Unjustly Holds, Restitution
ii. Punishment and Deterrence
II. Categories of Remedies
a. Damages, Restitution, Equitable Remedies
b. Substitutionary Remedies, Specific Remedies, and Declaratory Relief
c. Legal v. Equitable Remedies
d. Nominal Damages
e. Economic Compared to Noneconomic Damages
An Introduction to Compensatory Damages
I.
Compensatory Damages as Substitutionary Relief; Restoring the P to His
or Her Rightful Position
II. General and Special Damages
III. Valuing Compensatory Damages
IV. Adjustments to Compensatory Damages
a. Present Value and Inflation
b. Prejudgment Interest
c. Post Judgment Interest
d. Taxes
Understanding Remedies §§1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12,16, 17
Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 (1988)
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983)
Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001)
Other materials: Frank Dotti, Personal Injury Income Tax Exclusion, 75 Denv. U. L. Rev.
1 (1997); Michael Knoll, A Primer on Prejudgment Interest, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 293 (1996).
Day 2 – May 27
Compensatory Tort Damages
I. Introduction
II. Harm to Personal Property
a. Diminished Market Value
b. Loss of Use and Enjoyment
c. Cost of Replacement
d. Cost of Repair
Hewlett v. Barge Bertie, 418 F.2d 654 (4th Cir. 1969)
Terrell v. Tschirn, 656 So. 2d 1150 (1995)
Understanding Remedies §§ 10.1, 10.3-10.7, 80-81, 83, 90-91, 92-94 (but not 93.3,
93.4, 94.3, 94.5)
III. Harm to Real Property
a. Change in market value v. cost of repair
Kerns v. Pro-Foam of South Alabama, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (S.D. Ala 2007)
Day 3 – May 30 (More on Compensatory Tort Damages)
IV. Personal Injury Damages
a. Introduction
b. General v. Special Damages for Physical Injury
c. Pain and Suffering, Emotional Distress, and Other “Noneconomic”
Damages
d. Medical Expenses
e. Future Medical Expenses
f. Lost Wages and Lost Earning Capacity
g. Household Services
h. Loss of Enjoyment of Life
i. Loss of Consortium
j. Life as Injury
McDougald v. Garber, 536 N.E.2d 372 (1989)
Debus v. Grand Union Stores of Vermont, 621 A.2d 1288 (Vt. 1993)
Belcher v. Goins, 400 S.E.2d 830 (1990
Turpin v. Sortini, 643 P.2d 954 (1982)
Understanding Remedies §§ 70-74, 76
Day 4 – May 31 Wrongful Death/Presumed Damages
III. Wrongful Death, including Alabama’s Wrongful Death Statute
IV. Survivorship Statutes, including Alabama’s Survivorship Statute
V. Presumed Damages
a. Dignity Torts
b. Defamation
c. Civil Rights
d. Privacy
Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986)
Cottrell v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 975 So. 2d 306 (Ala. 2007).
Understanding Remedies §§75, 105-106 (but not 106.3 and 106.4), 110, 111
Day 5 – June 1 Limits on Tort Damages
VI. Limits on Tort Damages
a. Suffering without Physical Injury
b. Economic Harm Rule (Economic Loss Rule) in Negligence Actions
c. Proximate Cause
d. Certainty
e. Excessiveness
Ex Parte Grand Manor, Inc., 778 So.2d 173 (Ala. 1998)
Petitions of the Kinsman Transit Co., 368 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1968)
In re Exxon Valdez v. Hazelwood, 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001)
Wal-Wart Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 789 So. 2d 166 (Ala. 2000)
Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. City of Salem, 549 S.E.2d 266 (W. Va. 2001)
Aiken v. DeBow, 541 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 2000).
Pruitt v. Allied Chemical, 523 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Va. 1981).
Understanding Remedies §§ 8, 11
Other materials: East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerical Delavel, Inc., 476 U.S.
858 (1986).
Days 6 & Day 7 – June 2 & 6 Compensatory Damages in Contracts Cases
I. Introduction
II. Expectancy Interest v. Reliance Interest
a. Problems with the Substantive Contract Claim
b. Policy Reasons to Limit to Reliance Damages
c. Problems with Certainty
d. Expectancy Damages in Torts: The Special Case of Fraud
III. The Theory of Efficient Breach
IV. Emotional Distress Damages in Contracts Cases
V. Consequential Damages
Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (____)
Freud v. Washington Square Press, Inc., 314 N.E.2d 419 (1974)
Donovan v. Bachstadt, 453 A.2d 160 (1982) (buyer’s remedies in land contracts)
Peevy House v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P. 2d 109 (1962)
Erlich v. Menezes, 981 P.2d 978 (1999)
Spang Industries, Inc. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 512 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1975)
Evra Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp., 673 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1982)
Selman v. Shirley, 91 P.2d 312 (1939)
Understanding Remedies §§ 140, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168
Day 8 – June 7 Compensatory Damages – Contracts - UCC
VI. Compensatory Damages in Contracts Cases: The Application of the UCC
a. Buyers’ Remedies (UCC §§ 2-711, 712, 713, 714)
i. Cover (2-712)
ii. Market Damages (2-713)
iii. Incidental and Consequential Damages (2-715)
iv. Anticipatory Repudiation
b. Sellers’ Remedies (UCC §§ 2-706, 708, 709, 710
i. Resale (2-706)
ii. Action on the Price (Market Price – Contract Price) (2-709)
iii. Incidental Damages (2-710)
iv. The Lost Volume Seller (2-708(2))
Sprague v. Sumitomo Forestry Co., 709 P.2d 1200 (1985)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Consumers Power Co., 636 F. Supp 1498 (E.D. Mich. 1986)
R.E. Davis Chem. Corp. v. Diasonics, 826 F.2d 678 ( ___Cir. 1987)
UCC §§ 610, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715 and comments
Day 9 – June 8 Limitation on Remedies in Contracts Cases
VII. Limitations on Remedies in Contracts Cases
a. Liquidated Damages
b. Limitation on Kinds of Damages
c. UCC Article 2 Limitations on Remedies
d. Arbitration
Vanderbilt University v. DiNardo, 174 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 1999)
Seidlitz v. Auerbach, 230 N.Y. 167, 129 N.E. 461 (1920)
Understanding Remedies §§ 181-184, 186
UCC §§ 718 & 719
Day 10 – June 9 Assuring the Rightful Position
VIII. Assuring the Rightful Position
a. The Certainty Requirement
b. Avoidable Consequences or Mitigation
c. Mitigation Under Article 2 of the UCC
d. Offsetting Benefits
e. The Collateral Source Rule
Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 474 P.2d 689 (1970)
S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Warner, Co., 576 F.2d 524 (3rd Cir.. 1978)
Albert v. Monarch Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 743 A.2d 890 (2000)
Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 465 P.2d 61 (Cal. 1970)
Understanding Remedies §§ 13-15
Days 11-12 – June 13-14
Restitution
I. The Concept of Unjust Enrichment (Benefit to the Defendant)
II. Measuring Unjust Enrichment
III. Quasi-Contracts (Contracts Implied in Law)
IV. Quantum Merit
V. Requirement of Restoration
VI. Restitution and Contracts that are Unenforceable (Fraud, Innocent Material
Misrepresentation, Duress, Undue Influence, Incapacity)
VII. Constructive Trusts
VIII. Tracing
IX. Equitable Liens
X. Apportioning Benefits
XI. Disgorgement Orders
XII. Limitations on Restitution Remedies
a. Tracing Problems
b. Election of Remedies
c. Volunteers
d. Preclusion by Express Contract
XIII. Rescission and Reformation
a. Rescission and Break of Contract
b. Restitution as Recovery for a Non-Breaching Party in an Enforceable Contract
c. Restitution as Recovery for a Breaching Party in an Enforceable Contract
d.. Rescission and Losing Contracts
e. Reformation
Kossian v. American National Insurance Co., 254 Cal. App. 2d 647 (1967)
Olwell v. Nye & Nisse Co., 173 P. 2d 652 (1947)
Somerville v. Jacobs, 170 S.E.2d 805 (1969)
Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte, 661 P.2d 196 (1982)
Maglica v. Maglica, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101 (1998)
Edwards v. Lee’s Administrator, 96 S.W.2d 1020 (1977)
Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. Hall, 39 S.E.2d 231 (1946)
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures, Corp., 309 U.S. 390 (194)
G&M Motor Co. v. Thompson, 567 P.2d 80 (Okl. 1977)
Simonds v. Simonds, 380 N.E. 2d 189 (N.Y. 1978)
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980)
Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234 (1998)
Earthinfo Inc. v. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc., 900 P.2d 113 (Colo. 1995)
Harper v. Adametz, 113 A. 2d 136 (1955)
Earl v. Saks & Co., 226 P. 2d 340 (1951)
Understanding Remedies §§ 40-47, 50-51, 54-56, 59,130-132, 134-136, 163
Other Materials: Saul Levmore, Explaining Restitution, 71 Va. L. Rev. 65, 109-11 (1985)
Symposium: Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 1763-2197 (2001)
Day 13 – June 15
Punitive Damages
I. Introduction
II. Punitive Damages and Constitutional Issues
III. Punitive Damages and Contracts
IV. Punitive Damages and Restitution
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. (391)
Philip Morris v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 2008 WL 2511219 (June 25, 2008)
Understanding Remedies §§ 200-209
Days 14 - 16 – June 16, 21 & 22
Injunctions as Equitable Remedies
I. P’s Rightful Position as the Measure of an Injunction
II. Preserving the Status Quo?
III. Requirements of Injunctions
a. Inadequate Remedy at Law
b. Irreparable Harm
c. Balancing the Equities
d. Public Interest
IV. Other Policy Reasons for Courts to Deny Injunctions
a. Freedom of Speech
b. Burden on the Court
c. Discretion
V. Ripeness and Mootness Issues with Injunctions
VI. The Proper Scope of Injunctive Relief
VII. Permanent Injunctions
VIII. Persons Bound by Injunctions
IX. Temporary Restraining Orders
X. Preliminary Injunctions
XI. Structural Injunctions
XII. Injunction Bonds
XIII. Recovery of Damages for Wrongfully Granted TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Goulding v. Cook, 661 N.E. 2d 1322 (1996) (permanent injunction)
Wheelock v. Noonan, 15 N.E. 67 (1888) (permanent injunction)
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006) (permanent injunction)
Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (1973) (permanent injunction)
Madsen v. Women’ Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (permanent injunction)
American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd., 780 F.2d 589 (1986)
(alternative sliding scale)
In Re Vuitton et Fills S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (1979) (TRO)
Saint v. Nebraska School Activities Ass’n, 684 F. Supp. 626 (D. Neb. 1988)
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970) (nuisance)
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) (nuisance)
Coyne Delany Co. v Capital Development Brd., 717 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1983) (bond)
Understanding Remedies §§ 20-24, 28, 30-31, 33-34, 93.3, 94.3, 154
Day 17 – June 23 More on Injunctions
XIV. Modifying Existing Injunctions
XV. Appeals
XVI. Pre-Appeal Injunctive Relief
XVII. Stay of a Grant of a Provisional or Permanent Injunctions
XVIII. Injunction Pending Appeal from a Denial of Provisional or Permanent Injunctive
Relief
XIX. Jury Trials and Equitable Cleanup: Federal Court Approach to the Right to Jury
Trial
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)
Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (19921)
Ziebarth v. Kalenze, 238 N.W. 2d 261 (N.D. 1976)
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (___)
Understanding Remedies §§ 32, 36
Day 18 – June 24 Contempt
I. Criminal Contempt
II. Civil Coercive Contempt
III. Civil Compensatory Contempt
IV. Contempt and Third Parties
V. The Collateral Bar Rule
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968)
Time-Share Systems Inc. v. Schmidt, 397 N.W. 2d 438 (Minn. App. 1986)
United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994)
United States v. Hall, 472 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1972)
People v. Conrad, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248 (1997)
Understanding Remedies §§ 190-195, 197-198
e. The Collateral Bar Rule
Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
In Re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342 (1987)
Day 19 – June 27
Structural Injunctions
Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins III), 515 U.S. 70 (1995)
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)
Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976)
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
Specific Performance
Centex Homes Corp. v. Boag, 320 A.2d 194 (1974)
Understanding Remedies §§ 170-177
Day 20 – June 28 -- Attorney Fees
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)
Buckhannon Board & Care Homes, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human
Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001)
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986)
Understanding Remedies §§ 210-214