Search

Agreements exchanging sex for money and those involving marijuana may encounter illegality defenses in court. Granting a legal remedy for breach of an agreement that exchanges seriously illegal consideration would lower the court's public standing and endanger its legitimacy. On the other hand, the spectacle of a buyer claiming its own illegality to escape paying its seller troubles courts. Lord Mansfield stated the illegality defense in Holman v. Johnson: "No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act." Yet he rejected the illegality defense in that case on the ground that the plaintiff's contract to sell tea that the buyer planned to smuggle into England was complete before the crime occurred. Difficult illegality decisions arise when the illegality is not serious, as in this Article's sex and marijuana topics. This Article rejects fixed rules for illegality disputes and favors judicial discretion guided through standards. The standards include the seriousness of the illegality and preventing unjust enrichment leading to restitution. Applying the standards to the Article's first example leads to potential recovery for an unpaid sex worker. The Article also approves recovery of contractual damages for many marijuana transactions that are illegal under federal law but legal under state law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of nationwide national government injunction to prevent the unlawful activities of the executive branch in the U.S. Also cited are the issues on injunctions like the lack of jurisdiction or authority of federal courts to grant injunctions and promotion of forum shopping, as well as the constitutional issues like judicial review and separation of powers.

The Trump Administration has reversed the federal government's role of protecting the environment. The reversal focuses attention on states' environmental capacity. This Article advocates more vigorous state environmental tort remedies for nuisance and trespass. An injunction is the superior remedy in most successful environmental litigation because it orders correction and improvement. Two anachronistic barriers to an environmental injunction are the New York Court of Appeals' decision, Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, and Calabresi and Melamed's early and iconic law-and-economics article, One View of the Cathedral. This Article examines and criticizes both because, by subordinating the injunction to money damages, they undervalue public health and environmental protection and militate against effective private-law remedies for environmental torts. This Article advocates flexible and pragmatic common-law techniques instead of law-and-economics analysis. Moreover, behavioral economists' studies have undermined and qualified many law-and-economics theories. In addition to arguing for more and better injunctions, this Article criticizes the law-and-economics mindset that nuisance-trespass parties' post-injunction negotiation will convert an injunction into an excessive money settlement. It also shows that the Cathedral article's vocabulary and four-rule organization are both too long and too short as well as confusing and misleading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Searching for the most suitable money remedy for a simple commercial bribe promptly lands a lawyer, judge, professor, student, or researcher in a remedial smorgasbord. De-emphasizing injunctions, commercial bribery offers a spectrum of monetary remedies. The plaintiff has two defendants, the briber and the bribee. He has two major remedies, damages and restitution. The overlapping policies consist of compensating the plaintiff, preventing the defendants' unjust enrichment, deterring the defendants and others, and punishing the defendants. Courts implement these policies with compensatory damages, restitution, and punitive damages. A bribe can be returned as damages or restitution, a significant distinction. Punishment points the court's remedial compass at punitive damages. The law distinguishes between legal restitution and equitable restitution. Equitable restitution distinguishes between constructive trust and accounting-disgorgement; if a defendant has other creditors, the distinction takes center stage. Recovery from the briber adds the possibility of duplication. The possibilities of confusion and excess lurk in the wings. Bribery is a private law-public law hybrid; commercial bribery is on the private law side. Commercial bribery plays a role in three recent Restatements; Employment, Restitution, and Agency. Courts in the United States cite persuasive authority from other common-law jurisdictions to fill gaps in local positive law. Domestic courts may learn from others about alternative solutions to shared problems. Some differences, for example, in jury trial, statutes, punitive damages and equitable restitution, frustrate complete unification. Stating the courts' choice and measurement alternatives proves to be a daunting task. In addition, this Article is generous with advice about the routes lawyers and courts should take. This Article adduces legal theory in an effort to clarify the better choices. Plaintiffs' lawyers have a wide range of possibilities. The courts' demanding duty is to align policies, remedies rules, and solutions. The results turn out to be challenging at best, often problematic. The risk of inaccuracy and over-correction is pervasive. The search has not found a substitute for human judgment. Principles of confinement, understanding of alternatives, and careful contextual analysis will improve courts' decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with foreclosure of a deed of trust in Virginia. The Introduction discusses the deed of trust or mortgage as a social and political institution and the foreclosure crisis that seems to be ending. Part I is a brief history of mortgage law. It provides a short history of the modern mortgage system in the United States. Part II follows with a description of the approach that Virginia takes to mortgages. It localizes the mortgage institution to Virginia and introduces Virginia's vocabulary and technical details, the deed of trust, and the parties' rights and obligations. Part III provides the procedures required to foreclose in Virginia and sell the property used to secure the debt in the event of mortgage default. It develops the debtor's default, the creditor's foreclosure, and the sale. Part IV outlines the potential responses and defenses that a borrower may use when facing foreclosure after default. It includes the borrower's defenses, redemption, techniques to assert a defense, the "show-me-the-note" response, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, federal bankruptcy, and selfhelp and civil disobedience. The ideas for change in Part V offer suggestions for reforming the Virginia mortgage system to better protect borrowers, while maintaining the efficiency of the foreclosure process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on equitable discretion and how it applies to legal practices. Topics discussed include the insights of professor Steve Subrin about equity process, the definition of equity as a rectification of law in the book "Nicomachean Ethics," by Aristotle, and the basic distinctions between equity and law.

The article focuses on a course related to remedies which includes claims relating to law schools for not preparing their students for law practice. It discusses several topics on remedies including coverage of remedies, remedies in the classroom, and teaching remedies outside the classroom. It depicts that a student is prepared for analysis, litigation, and decision-making of law practice through the discussion and the problem-oriented course in remedies.

Courts apply compensatory damages, restitution, and punitive damages to formulate litigants' civil remedies. The frequently contested policy justiflcations for these three remedies are often hazy and uncertain. The transitions between the three remedies are disputed. Lawyers and courts often misunderstand restitution with deleterious consequences for litigants and the administration ofjustice. The American Law Institute's completion of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment provides the legal profession with opportunities to dispel this haze and to clarify the distinctions. In addition to obviating defendants' unjust enrichment, restitution with its measurement choices provides a midpoint on a continuum of the three remedies. Restitution's policy just jucations often overlap with compensatory damages at one end of the continuum and with punitive damages at the other. This modest effort identifies wiser choices to aid lawyers' and courts' remedial decisions and seeks to improve the courts' administration of litigants' civil remedies. Focusing on the Restatement's measurement choices for restitution, it explains familiar examples to analyze the choices between compensatory damages, restitution, and punitive damages and to locate the transitions between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A statement of the AAUP Committee R on Government Relations on the 1988 elections is presented. The committee is concerned about the debt burdens of college students and the graying of the current faculty. Faculty members are urged to work actively in behalf of candidates. (MLW)