https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48102237)

Lol at the mocking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48102832)

exact opposite, actually. he's an "officer" at some lib thinktank in dc. before that he was a legislative attorney for shitlibs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48102878)

In a related vein, don't you think a race-critical analysis of the MPC leads to the conclusion that the criminal law's overreliance on "scienter" is a anti-black construct designed to reinstute slavery on black bodies?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48103445)

it's a contract. you can do liquid damages too. you can get punitive damages.

what do you think the remedy should be for a breach? 3x damages?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104058)

I believe that was BEFORE the 2 things we were comparing were adherence to an inefficient contract, necessarily avoiding court altogether, and an efficient breach that will necessarily either go to court or settle in the shadow of litigation (including its inefficiencies and structural asymmetries).

There's nothing inherently wrong about shooting someone in the chest with a .380, either. It's the frailness of our internal organs and central circulatory system, and our cultural resistance to wearing body armor 24/7, that is the real problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104125)

legal costs + cost of breach are often negotiated or even in the contract itself. what do you think the remedy should be? 20x actual damages? specific performance? guy can't paint your house so now he has to commit ritual suicide for dishonoring the sacred oath of contract?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104161)

Shame we have to punish everyone with this newfangled legal theory championed most visibly by a literal drooling retard (posner) from the 80s rather than allowing people to rely on normative principles of trust, honor, and word as bond that have fostered human society since time immemorial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104240)

can't believe i'm reading a thread like this where gunnerattt of all people is the voice of sober reason

posner was 180 as fuck btw, just lol at you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104273)

Be advised that he's lost a step; probably only at 85-90% of his peak cognitive capacity. So you should bring some applesauce and a plastic spoon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48105014)

if we could rely solely on normative principles of trust, honor, and word as bond there would be no need for contract law to begin with. contracts are going to be breached. even people that try their hardest to fulfil their promises will come up short sometimes. the question is what should happen when that happens. and you seem to have no answer for that except for ranting about libertarians and posner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104298)

Contract is the legal embodiment of the larger and much more important social norm of promise-keeping, and you're probably a drooling autistic retard like posner -- in his Group Home for Drooling & Demented Old Retards -- if you don't understand, at some level, the role of law as 'moral teacher', solidifier and bellwether of norms, whatever exactly you want to call it.

It's like those people -- usually 116-IQ buck-toothed libertarian/FedSoc-dork types with terrible haircuts -- who scoff at how we invest resources in preventing mass tragedies (airplane crashes/hijackings, school shootings, etc.), esp. violent ones, at disproportionately high rates relative to our investment in preventing far-more-common individual deaths (highway collisions, heart disease). Most non-autists instinctively understand that this isn't about some stupid-as-fuck attempt to invest resources in the most myopically rational way; it's about the way-more-important enterprise of promoting shared values of protecting and appreciating human life, avoiding mass tragedy and hardening of sentimentality that comes with its repeated recurrence, and in general fostering norms that operate outside the legal system and are roughly 1,000,000,000x more important than any gay faggot shit going on within the legal system itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48105207)

you keep bringing up murder as if we don't *ALREADY* have a civil and criminal system. if i murder a child i *AM* liable for economically *AS WELL* as criminally. that's sort of the point -- one is focused on ECONOMIC remedies and making people harmed whole, and the other is PUNISHING people for immoral or antisocial behavior. for all of your blathering shit we all discussed in fall of 1L year it never seemed to occur to you that a dual system exists that can punish an act *AND* make someone wronged whole again.

and for all your blathering about ARE sacred legal system failing to protect morality like in the bucolic days of our forefathers, you don't seem to have considered for a second that we're discussing BLACK LETTER CONTRACT LAW THAT HAS EXISTED IN THE COMMON LAW FOR CENTURIES BEFORE AMERICA EXISTED.

the law has criminal punishments for plenty white collar crimes. even in civil court you can get punitive damages for egregious conduct. again, you've proposed nothing and have only ranted about fedsoc and posner and idyllic fantasies of the past.

it's a foundational principle of civil law that the purpose is to compensate the plaintiff for harms caused by the defendant. for all of your 1L blather you seem to have missed this. this doesn't begin and end with contracts, it's the same with torts, so you can stop making your nuanced point that "ACTUALLY IF THE REMEMDY FOR BREACH IS TO MAKE THE NON-BREACHING PARTY WHOLE IN A PURELY ECONOMIC TRANSACTION THAT'S RRRREALLLLLLLLLLY NO DIFFERENT THAN PUTTING A PRICE ON CHILDREN'S LIVES!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48105354)

adding "hate crime" is just bullshit SJW garbage that double punishes for what the concept of mens rea already covers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104105)

Efficient breach itself is in a commercial context, which is how it got traction. But if you start looking at legal instruments in general as things that can be cast aside if it's more "efficient" there's no logical reason why it should be limited to commercial contracts

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48103265)

why do you think it's so bad? in general, i agree with the view that The Law should be incentivizing people to act in ways that are maximally beneficial/good to society as a whole, which is what this theory seems to be going for. the difficult part is defining that Good. economic cost/benefit calculations are an imperfect but pretty good way of doing that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48104153)

This result, even when visibly repeated and enshrined into precedent, will not in any way impair the maintenance of core beliefs about the sanctity of human life, equal justice under the law, compassion for the less fortunate, etc. The decision is just ink stamped on paper in a courtroom that has no effect on anything else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48105296)

It helps to distinguish between efficient breach as an occurrence and efficient breach as a concept. People breach contracts. This is not a secret. No attorney is surprised to hear the people breach contracts.

This becomes problematic IMO only when you formalize it. What efficient breach, as a doctrine, really means is that it's not a breach but a built-in part of the deal. It is the concept that you go into the contract with the intention of breaching it in the right circumstances. It's a philosophy, or the beginning of a philosophy, that law is not something to be obeyed, but something to be obeyed or ignored at your convenience. Obviously lots of people think this way anyway. But efficient breach brings that opinion into the legal academy and the judiciary, whose job it is to enforce those laws. If laws (and contracts are a law as to the parties between them) can be set aside upon an individual judgment that it would be more efficient, they aren't really laws at all. This is a dangerous path for judges and law professors to begin wandering

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109261)

That's not what efficient breach says, i.e., that the contract can be 'set aside'. Efficient breach says, "I choose to accept the consequences of my actions (breach, damages) because the alternative (performance) would be worse for me." Nobody is saying the efficient breacher didn't breach the contract or shouldn't pay damages for breaching. From my understanding the court treats the breach of contract as a breach of contract. "Efficient" is more a way to describe it from the breacher or breachee's point of view. The breacher just breached because that was the most efficient way for it to get ahead, and, after all, wasn't that the motivation for both parties to get into the contract in the first place?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109331)

I've had this same debate/discussion with my irl lawyer friends many times. Very few lawyers I've met are sophisticated enough to understand The Law as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. After learning from friends and colleagues about how The Legal System really works in practice, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that you're making above than I was as a true layman who knew nothing about the workings of the legal system in practice

In practice, the members of the legal system *must* treat it as an end in and of itself, with ironclad rules that exist to be rules to be followed, because the system won't function otherwise. These people are not intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand the law as a means to an end, and even if they were, our society is now fractured and incoherent to the point where a common Good no longer exists

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109474)

This all assumes a concept of "the law" that is itself internally coherent, thoughtful, and not constantly changing based on the whims of assorted retards ofc haha

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109738)

The question is how the Custodians And Writers Of The Law should view and treat the law. Any philosopher grasps that the proper way is to treat it as a means to an end, in the same way that every other facet of society is a means to the end of society. But when these people are, we'll call them, "assorted retards," this doesn't work so well, and it would seem that the prudent and practical course is for them to collectively settle on a consensus to treat The Law as an end in the same way that the common people do

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109845)

You may find this amusing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48109912)

is that a legal theory? i dunno wtf a difference is between a legal rule, a legal principle, and a legal theory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48105431)

which is bullshit because the other party relied on the promise. So unless they can get an injunction, they are SOL and simply put back to where they were prior to the promise. That isn't actually making them whole. It's often a shitty thing to do because but "acceptable" because "efficiency"

its in fact a very slimly legal theory that pretends like its NBD when in real life it's slimly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48106129)

it's a shitty economic formalism concocted by math autists with no IRL experience

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48106143)

Damages is a legal principle, efficient breach is an economic one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2/#48106811)