Posted by


  • negligent, intentional, strict liability. Ordinary prudence/level of care; plaintiff must prove–reasonable person. (Did not get into burden of proof specifics.)
  • dangerous activities–very hazardous activities–strict liability.
  • res ipsa loquitur “speaks for itself,” one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened
  • list of intentional torts. Conversion.
  • Economics, politics, other factors; laws and case law changes.
  • “Body of reasoned opinion”


  • legal way to enforce promise.
  • solution is to put back as if contract were fulfilled with money, i.e., we’ll pay for someone else to do it; expectation damages.
  • again, the issue of “what the political system will enforce.”
  • form (i.e., assent) is separate from substance; first determine if it was agreed to and then what is in it.
  • mutual benefit and time 2 key issues. Doctrine of consideration (something of value).
  • breach: “you chose at that point to go back on the deal” (not “lied about reason to participate”).
  • will of the party–what was its purpose in terms of doing it?–over time is key… e.g., I did not enter into it in order to have money taken from my checking account without authorization.

Leave a Reply