|
|
English Legal History
4/27/2009
Outline
|
|
CONTRACT AND TORT:
AN OVERVIEW OF 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS
|
|
1.
|
19th century ideas of contract: the will theory and its relationship to
economic liberalism
|
|
2.
|
We last left contract at Slade’s Case (1602). Coke’s resolutions
as interpreted by Baker (see Mats., pp. VII–48 to VII–49).
|
|
|
a.
|
You can bring assumpsit even
if debt is available, the authority for this is
other cases of duplication, e.g., assumpsit
for covenant, trover for detinue, case for nuisance.
|
|
|
b.
|
Every contract executory imports in itself an assumpsit.
|
|
|
c.
|
If only the debt (as opposed to special damages) is sued for, the
damages will be the same in either case—hence one action will bar the other
(that may not be a resolution of Slade’s
Case, but it is never again doubted)—hence debt is dead
|
|
|
d.
|
Problem of consideration not really considered—the fictional promise by 1612
has an equally fictional consideration—there is nothing in this case about
a promise for a promise.
|
|
|
e.
|
Doesn’t say anything about quasi-contract.
|
|
|
f.
|
No discussion of indebitatus
assumpsit because that was not what was pleaded and the contract was
laid out quite specifically and so proven. General declarations not
involved—the subsequent distinction between general and special assumpsit.
|
|
|
g.
|
Problems:
|
|
|
|
i.
|
Wager of law wasn’t all that bad
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
The problem of the general pleading in assumpsit
|
|
3.
|
Developments before and after Slade’s
Case
|
|
|
a.
|
Slade’s Case and the problem
of indefinite pleading
|
|
|
|
i.
|
Indebitatus assumpsit — not
enough notice
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
The common counts: goods sold and delivered, goods bargained and sold,
work done, money lent, money spent by plaintiff to defendant’s use, money had
and received by defendant to plaintiff’s use, and money due on an account
stated.
|
|
|
b.
|
Slade’s Case and the problem
of perjury—>the S/Frauds—a remarkable effort of the late 17th century
involving both Nottingham (LC, 1675–1682) and Lord North (CJCP, 1675–1682),
return of wager of law arguments, limitation of damages suggested (cf.
continental parallels (legislation of Louis XIV)), the ultimate resolution
is the Statute of Frauds, requiring a writing but not a seal for most
important kinds of contracts.
|
|
|
c.
|
Quasi-contract: (a) quantum meruit
and quantum valebat counts
rapidly become fictional, (b) fictional insumul
computasset for customary payments, (c) money had and received for mistaken
payments, but Holt (1689–1710) stops further developments here, (d) assumpsit for use and occupation
(becomes a kind of quantum meruit,
never allowed to substitute for ejectment), (e) money had and received in a
recission context develops after Holt’s time, (f) waiver of tort and suit
in assumpsit (again money had and
received), even Holt accepts this in the context of a tortious sale, (g)
fictitious money had and received also allowed for certain contribution
situations, e.g., among co-sureties. Curiously in England the restitutionary
actions died with the forms of action only to be revived quite recently.
What happens in the 17th & 18th centuries has curious analogies to the
S/Uses, people ask what could have been brought in debt prior to Slade’s Case, even though there is
little evidence that these things ever were brought in debt.
|
|
|
d.
|
Consideration, a 16th century story—merger of quid pro quo,
action taken in reliance, civilian causa—the
first clear promise for a promise cases do not come until shortly after
Slade’s Case, but there are strong hints of it long before Slade’s Case.
|
|
|
e.
|
Merger of warranty into the assumpsit
action is a development just hinted at at the end of 17th c. (origins, as
we have seen, in deceit).
|
|
|
f.
|
Contract as we know it, offer and acceptance, covenants and conditions,
general and special damages, is largely the creation of the late 18th and
19th centuries. The importance of Lord Mansfield and Continental law.
|
|
|
g.
|
Is the will theory of contract of contract the invention of 19th century
liberalism? Atiyah thinks so. Baker has more doubts. In the case of both
Atiyah and Horwitz for America both authors may put too much emphasis on
the relatively few cases in which courts in our period were willing to
examine into the worth of consideration. Leaving that mistake aside, the
fact is that the number of reported cases of special assumpsit prior to Lord Mansfield is very small. The medieval
idea of contract died hard, and if the current developments are any
indication, it may not be dead yet.
|
|
1.
|
The 19th century settlement:
|
|
|
a.
|
Intentional torts
|
|
|
b.
|
Torts based on negligence
|
|
|
c.
|
Strict or absolute liability
|
|
2.
|
Torts—we last left it some place in the 15th c. in order to pursue assumpsit. The word assumpsit continues to be used in
tort actions and no consideration need be shown (16th c). Contract and tort
are thus differentiated in one action, but they remain very close
particularly in cases of trade and professional negligence.
|
|
3.
|
The next development is somewhat surprising: the seeds that are sewn in
the action on the case wither. The custom of the realm goes only so far:
innkeepers, fire, that’s about it. Scienter
goes only so far; animals account for most of the actions. It has recently
been suggested that the courts were concerned with limiting the new action.
Perhaps that is right. In any case people sue either in vi et armis (battery) or assumpsit.
|
|
|
a.
|
The Case of Thorns (1466) (Mats., p.
IX–165) a mistaken attempt to plead accident. This clearly weren’t no accident.
|
|
|
b.
|
Weaver v. Ward (1616) (Mats.}, p. IX–165), a shooting
accident case, again the plea of accident is offered and rejected with
dicta about “inevitable accident.”
|
|
|
c.
|
We are still in world of pleading. If the defendant has a justification
he can plead confession and avoidance. If his story is “not my fault,” he should
plead not guilty. “Not my fault” is properly a jury question. Gibbon v. Pepper (1695) (Mats.}, p. IX–169) (a runaway horse
case) says as much.
|
|
4.
|
Mitchell v. Alestree (1676) (Mats., p. IX–172)
waiver of force and suit on the case for negligence. Lord Hale and breaking
in horses in Lincoln’s
Inn Fields. The case is pled in case and rejected at nisi prius on the
ground that the horses were not badly controlled. But a new action is
allowed on the ground that they were improvide
brought into the fields. This may be the beginning of a generalized notion
of negligence. It was certainly so seen at later times.
|
|
5.
|
18th century sees the emergence of the reasonable man standard and the
notion of duty of care. Also the continuing problem of trespass vs. case,
culminating in Scot v. Shepherd,
2 Wm. Bla. (1773). Williams v. Holland, 10 Bing.
112 (1833) allows waiver of trespass and suit on case except where there is
a direct, willful injury.
|
|
6.
|
19th century abolition of the forms of action and rearrangement
according to the plaintiff’s fault.
|
|
7.
|
Meanwhile other torts are developing around other actions:
|
|
|
a.
|
Trover last of the great fictions parallels assumpsit in development, including a resolution around 1600 of
the problem of concurrence of detinue and trover.
|
|
|
b.
|
Assize of nuisance and the action on the case for nuisance—same
resolution at the same time as Slade’s
Case—gradual development thereafter. Note this is the action for
interference with easements. Lots of interesting smells cases in the 16th
and 17th centuries. Private vs. public is, alas, also a distinction of this
period.
|
|
|
c.
|
Defamation—the ecclesiastical courts—the 16th and 17th centuries and the
mitior sensus rule—criminal libel
is another story
|
|
|
d.
|
Economic torts—the most important one in our period is the public law
story of the Case of Monopolies,
11 Co. Rep. 84 (1602) and the subsequent statute. Tortious interference
with economic relations: loss of services of apprentices, wives and
daughters, inducing breach of contract; unfair competition: commercial
slander, misuse of trademarks, intimidation (a notion that will have
unfortunate consequences in 19th century cases about trade unions)
|
|
8.
|
It is a commonplace that English law knows no generalized conception of
tort, only a law of torts (in the plural). In the 19th century the idea of intention/negligence
came to develop a unifying capability. We are probably mistaken in seeing
too much of this before the 19th century. Like the contract problem, it’s
not that the roots of the 19th century development are not found in our
period; they are. But if we look at the whole range of tort actions, their
multiplicity strikes us. If in contract the old notion of contract lasted
for a long time, in tort that old notion that not doing is no trepass
lasted for a long time. The converse of this proposition is that if you did
it, you’re going to have to show a pretty good reason why you did it, or
persuade the jury. Relatively few direct inflictions of harm will escape
going to the jury, practically no intentional inflictions of harm will
escape going to the jury, except competition.
|
|