is "efficient breach" the most pernicious legal theory?
| AutoArbitrage | 09/17/24 | | gedood persoon | 09/17/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/17/24 | | gedood persoon | 09/17/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/17/24 | | gedood persoon | 09/17/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/17/24 | | .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. | 09/17/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/17/24 | | .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. | 09/17/24 | | VoteRepublican | 09/18/24 | | .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. | 09/18/24 | | White Privilege Log | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | Nippon Professional Baseball | 09/18/24 | | Kenneth Play | 09/18/24 | | A Technologically Advanced Pontiac Firebird | 09/18/24 | | Christopher's Disease | 09/18/24 | | lex | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | naked dude with a boner IRL | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | Lionel Tiger | 09/18/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/18/24 | | Kenneth Play | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | "'"''"'""' | 09/18/24 | | Kenneth Play | 09/18/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/18/24 | | Kenneth Play | 09/18/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | ADVANCED darkness | 09/18/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/18/24 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 09/18/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/19/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/19/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/19/24 | | naked dude with a boner IRL | 09/19/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/19/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 09/19/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/19/24 | | Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts | 09/19/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/19/24 | | naked dude with a boner IRL | 09/19/24 | | A Technologically Advanced Pontiac Firebird | 09/18/24 | | naked dude with a boner IRL | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | A Technologically Advanced Pontiac Firebird | 09/18/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Candy Ride | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Christopher's Disease | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | Jonathan Myman | 09/19/24 | | A Technologically Advanced Pontiac Firebird | 09/18/24 | | naked dude with a boner IRL | 09/19/24 | | NPC ThingDoer Poontang | 09/18/24 | | Christopher's Disease | 09/18/24 | | ,..,,,,,,....,,,..., | 09/18/24 | | Cupid Stunt | 09/18/24 | | AutoArbitrage | 09/18/24 | | pwnpwnpwn | 09/18/24 | | Jonathan Myman | 09/19/24 | | NPC ThingDoer Poontang | 09/19/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 17th, 2024 11:36 PM
Author: .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. ( )
Not in a world that has attractive nuisance
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102230) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2024 11:50 PM
Author: .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. ( )
I know all about trannie costs and attractive nuisance is still worse
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102266) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 10:16 AM
Author: .,.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.. ( )
Attractive nuisance is a real thing even if I've never litigated it personally. It's evil and mostly shifts the burden of parenting from parents to the community at large. You can't have a pool because some shitgoblin will drown in it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48103252) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 7:53 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
Goyim think a contract is an oath or something.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102809) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 8:02 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
Jewish professor?
Lol at the mocking.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102832) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 8:08 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
What’s he up to now? Fedsoc dork?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102866) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 12:38 PM Author: a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian (gunneratttt)
idk why you're so maf. i'm explicitly saying are legal system is inefficient and costly. that doesn't make efficient breach wrong -- those costs are added onto everything that has to go to court.
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...id#48104058) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 12:53 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)
"those costs are added onto everything that has to go to court"
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...id#48104125) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 1:18 PM Author: Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts
you seem like a naive retard with a child's view of the law and morality
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...id#48104273) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 4:22 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)
You're basically just subordinating contract to other legal obligations. You'd presumably agree that the efficient murder of a child shouldn't be limited to economic damages, and most people find it totally acceptable to over-disincentivize (relative to the Hand calculus) all types of risk creation in order to live in a world that is safer than it is profit-maximizing (N.B.: not that we'll always choose that; just that we aren't fully bound in all cases to rigid adherence to Hand), and that imbues/reinforces the *values* of social responsibility. Similarly, no one's saying that there should be massive punis in every K case -- I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that. Efficient breach theory is the extremist POV, as it advocates for removal (or, if you want to make the theory more palatable, dramatic reduction) of punitive damages and, by extension, the attachment of normative opprobrium on breach of contract.
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...id#48105207) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 4:52 PM Author: a certain dog being eaten by feral haitian (gunneratttt)
right, so still no answer re: remedy for breach?
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...id#48105354) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 8:06 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
Seems like a rule to compensate for legal costs could easily correct this, but this has nothing to do with the efficient breach theory
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102853) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 8:08 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
Yes but that’s a fault with something other than the efficient breach theory
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102869) |
Date: September 18th, 2024 7:54 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
A “hate crime” is a pretty sinister legal theory.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48102812) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 12:48 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
we already punish based on mens rea -- if you kill with premeditation, it's worse than if you kill with intent to kill and no premeditation... ans it's worse with you kill with intent to kill than if you're extremely reckless disregarding human life but didn't intend to kill.
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...id#48104105) |
Date: September 18th, 2024 10:20 AM Author: ceci n'est pas un avocat
It's up there, because it's not just one standalone thing. It's the leading edge of a completely new way of thinking about "law" and how people should react to law
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...id#48103265) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 1:08 PM Author: ceci n'est pas un avocat
Phone posting so this may ramble
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...id#48109261) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 1:53 PM Author: Person Familiar With His Internet Thoughts
I suspected that this is what you would say. Like you said above, it's a philosophical question about what The Law really is, and its role in Society
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...id#48109474) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 5:08 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
BEEP BEEP BEEP. it's a legal rule or legal principle, namely that no damages are owed to the non-breaching party when there is an efficient breach.
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...id#48105431) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 7:44 PM Author: AutoArbitrage
that's not correct. efficient breach is reneging on a contractual promise if the cost to do so (damages to make other party whole) is lower than the benefit
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...id#48106129) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2024 7:46 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
Not sure how this contradicts what I’m saying
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48106139) |
Date: September 18th, 2024 8:38 PM Author: ,..,,,,,,....,,,...,
People are free to write termination fees or conditions into contracts. If they don’t, the price to terminate should be whatever the consenting party will accept. If suppliers don’t like the uncertainty they can make some other concession to get an upfront agreement on termination fee. And if you as a supplier fail to negotiate any of this and then breach to take another opportunity, force your customer to sue, and lose on the merits, you should get absolutely fucked in the ass for being a dumb asshole.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5596830&forum_id=2...id#48106407) |
|
|