Actions, too, might create moral duties. Even relationships can create moral duties. If Seth Wyman's words did not create such a moral duty, Seth may still have been morally responsible by virtue of his relationship to his son. Quite simply, it is impractical to enforce all moral duties; there are too many of them.Great post!
Conversely, there are some nonmoral duties that should be enforced because enforcement is efficient—that is, because the benefits of enforcement outweigh the costs. It is hard to imagine a moral system that demands that people drive on the right side of the road, or that acceptance be effective on dispatch, but legal systems routinely enforce such obligations. As H.L.A. Hart said, "[t]he rules of international law, like those of municipal law, are often morally quite indifferent." This is not to say that rules of law are always or usually morally indifferent. There must be some overlap between law and morality, even if that overlap is more complete in some areas than others. But some statements and actions should give rise to legal liability even if they do not involve moral obligations. Some division between law and morality is inevitable.
« Older Jedi... | Stool transplants.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball is a case with facts that could have made PT Barnum proud: The defendants, the proprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," issued an advertisement in which they offered to pay £100 to any person who contracted the influenza after having used one of their smoke balls in a specified manner and for a specified period. The plaintiff on the faith of the advertisement bought one of the balls, and used it in the manner and for the period specified, but nevertheless contracted the influenza. Carbolic attempted to argue that there was no contract because it lacked the typical offer and acceptance, but the Court ruled that the advertisement was an offer of a unilateral contract between the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and anyone who satisfies the conditions set out in the advertisement. Once Mrs Carlill had satisfied the conditions she was entitled to enforcement of the contract; the notification of performance of the conditions formed part of the acceptance. (The rule form this case was the basis for the ruling in the famous Leonard v. Pepisco {Harrier} case).
Mills v. Wyman is a great story. Seth Wyman is the son of Capt. Ross Wyman who led an artillery detachment company on the march against the British at Lexington, April 19, 1775. Seth's son Levi runs off to join the Navy to be like his grandfather. In February of 1824, he washes ashore in Connecticut. Levi was very sick--likely from alcohol over-consumption--and is taken care of by Daniel Mills in Hartford. For several weeks, Mills feeds and nurses Levi back to health, as well as paying for the top physician to come in and take care of Levi. After Levi became well and left, Seth Wyman thanked Mills for being a good Samaritan and promised (maybe) to repay the costs of caring for Levi. However when Mills tried to collect, Wyman refused. Mills sued. From this case we get the rule that a moral obligation is not consideration sufficient to make a contract. Wyman didn't have to pay, although the Court did chastise him in print for all first year law students to read.
Perhaps the most famous contracts case of all is Hadley v. Baxendale, decided by the English Court of Exchequer in 1854. Priday's mill in Gloucester ground to a halt because of a cracked crankshaft. To get a new one made, it was necessary to send the old one, as a model, to the manufacturer of the mill's steam engine, in Greenwich. The miller sent one of his workers to a carrier's office to see how long the delivery would take; the worker told the carrier's clerk that the mill was stopped, and that the shaft must be sent immediately. The clerk replied that if the shaft was received by noon, it would be delivered the next day. The miller presented the shaft to the carrier before noon the next day and paid the fee to have it transported; but because of the carrier's neglect it was delivered several days late, with the result that several additional days passed before the mill got back in service. The miller sought, as damages for breach of the shipping contract, his lost profits for those days, which were of course many time what the carrier had received as the shipping charges. From this case, we get the rule that "the loss of profits here cannot reasonably be considered such a consequence of the breach of contract as could have been fairly and reasonably contemplated by both the parties when they made this contract"---or, the foreseeability of damages.
Of course, some of the cases are not as old, but even more strange such as the infamous Hawkins v. McGee, or as it is more well known as, "The Hairy Hand Case." (It was featured in The Paper Chase). Hawkins had injured his hand in an accident, and he went to Dr. McGee to get it fixed. Dr. McGee promised, "I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand." The surgery was not successful, and Hawkins ended up with a hairy hand due to the skin used in the graft. Hawkins was rightfully angry, and he sued saying he was promised the value of a "perfect hand" and didn't get it. From this case, we get the rule of expectation interest.
posted by dios at 11:30 AM on May 25, 2006 [1 favorite]