Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.
Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.327 U. S.251, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court allowing an action to recover compensatory damages under the antitrust statutes. The jury had returned a verdict for $120,000 in petitioners favor, the trial court, sitting in the Northern District of Illinois, gave judgment for treble damages, as prescribed by §4 of the Clayton Act. The 7th Circuit reversed on the ground that the evidence of damage was not sufficient for submission to the jury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence of damage was sufficient to support the verdict, respondents argued that any measure of damages would be too speculative and uncertain to afford an accurate measure of the amount of the damage. The Supreme Court disagreed, not wanting to let the respondent defeat a remedy because its antitrust violation was so effective, the judgment of the district court was affirmed and the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. During the conspiracy, films were distributed among cinemas in Chicago in such a manner that theatres owned by some of the conspirators were able to show movies before independent theater operators, independent exhibitors were not able to show new movies until the conspirators had finished with a first run. The Supreme Court found that it was indisputable that the jury could have found that, a first run theater possessed competitive advantages over later run theaters and that this discriminatory release was damaging to petitioners. The problem, however, was the uncertainty in determining to what amount those damages should total, the petitioners submitted two methodologies for calculating damages. The first was the method, which compared the earnings from petitioners theater, Jackson Park, during the conspiracy to the earnings of its competitor. The two theaters were comparable in size, although the Jackson Park theater was superior in location, equipment, the Maryland Theater, however, was owned by Paramount Pictures, and benefited from the conspiracy. The evidence showed that during the period, Marylands profit exceeded petitioners like profit by $115,982.34. The second measure was the before & after method and this comparison showed a falling off of petitioners profits during the five-year period aggregating $125,659.00. Petitioners are able to submit yardstick or before & after estimates, but they must be careful to use comparable data
Clameur de haro
The Clameur de Haro is an ancient legal injunction of restraint employed by a person who believes he is being wronged by another at that moment. It survives as a fully enforceable law to this day in the systems of Jersey and Guernsey. Based in Norman law, it is thought to be a plea for justice to Rollo. Harrow meaning give chase was commonly used in medieval England and France as a cry to others to drop what they were doing and it survives in English hunting parlance as Halloo and possibly in the word harrier as a name for a runner. The Clameur was perhaps most famously used by a landowner named Asselin FitzArthur to object to the burial of William the Conqueror, the procedure is performed on ones knees before at least two witnesses, in the presence of the wrong-doer, and in the location of the offence. The Criant with his hand in the air must call out — Haro, a laide, mon Prince, on me fait tort. Following this, the Criant must recite the Lords Prayer in French, notre Père qui est aux cieux. Ta volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel, et nous pardonne nos offenses, comme nous pardonnons à ceux qui nous ont offensés. Et ne nous induis point en tentation, mais délivre-nous du mal, on hearing this, the alleged wrong-doer must cease his challenged activities until the matter is adjudicated in court. Failure to stop will lead to the imposition of a fine, if the Criant is found to have called Haro without a valid reason, he in turn must pay a penalty. Furthermore, the grievance must be put in writing and lodged at the Greffier within 24 hours, Clameur de Haro can be overruled. For instance, in 1778 the States of Guernsey decided to erect 15 loophole towers at various points on the coast to impede any French incursion on the island. Although most of the towers were built on the Commons, or on land above the high-water mark. The States were of the opinion that the project was of importance that if necessary they would exercise eminent domain. notwithstanding any Clameur de Haro or any opposition whatsoever. The most recent use was in Guernsey in December 2016 to block the forceable removal of a car from private land. The case has yet to be adjudicated, hue and cry Dawes, Gordon, Laws of Guernsey. The historical development of the Martello Tower in the Channel Islands, ISBN 978-0951386804 Holden, Richard, Jersey Law Course, Civil Procedure, chapter 23. Account of a Tour in Normandy, Jersey Legal Information Board Jersey Citizens Advice Bureau Criants, Clamerists and the Clameur de Haro in the Channel Islands Chisholm, Hugh, ed. Haro, Clameur de
In a constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the plaintiff. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty, a controversial example is the case of Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid, in which a senior prosecutor took bribes not to prosecute certain offenders. With the bribe money, he purchased property in New Zealand and his employer, the Attorney-General, sought a declaration that the property was held on constructive trust for it, on the basis of breach of fiduciary duty. The Privy Council awarded a constructive trust, the case is different from Regal Ltd v Gulliver, because there was no interference with a profit-making opportunity that properly belonged to the prosecutor. In the event of the insolvency, the trust assets are untouchable by the general creditors. Supporters of Lister suggested that there was no reason to put the victim of wrongdoing ahead of other creditors of the estate. There was a tension in English law between Lister and Reid which was highlighted in Sinclair Investments Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd, the United Kingdom Supreme Court subsequently overruled Sinclair in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC, holding that Lister was no longer good law. In Foskett v McKeown a trustee used trust money together with some of his own money to purchase an insurance policy. The insurance company out to his family. The defrauded beneficiaries of the trust sought a declaration that the proceeds were held on constructive trust for them, there is controversy as to what the true basis is of this trust. The House of Lords said that it was to vindicate the plaintiffs original proprietary rights, however, this reasoning has been criticized as tautologous by some scholars who suggest the better basis is unjust enrichment. In Foskett v McKeown, the original property was an interest in the trust fund. The remedy they obtained was a constructive trust over an insurance payout and it is not obvious why such a new right should be awarded without saying it is to reverse the familys unjust enrichment. In Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank Ltd one bank paid another bank a sum of money by mistake. Goulding J held that the money was held on trust for the first bank and this remains an area of intense controversy. These type of trusts are called institutional constructive trusts and they arise the moment the relevant conduct occurs. They can be contrasted with remedial constructive trusts, which arise on the date of judgment as a remedy awarded by the court to do justice in the particular case, an example is the Australian case Muschinski v Dodds. A de facto couple lived in a owned by the man
Distraint or distress is the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed, especially in common law countries. Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent, in the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Article 61 of the Magna Carta extended the law of distraint to the monarchs properties, in England in 1267 the Statute of Marlborough was passed making distraint unlawful without a court order. Chapter 1 of the Statute of Marlborough 1267 provided that, all persons as well of high as of low estate were to receive justice in the Kings court. No individual was to be entitled to seek revenge or distress of his own authority against his neighbour for any damage or injury suffered without first obtaining an award from the court. Distress in this context was a summary remedy designed to secure performance of an obligation or settlement of an outstanding debt, first, it was the bedrock of the notion that all citizens, irrespective of rank, were entitled to seek civil justice through the Kings court or courts. Secondly, it laid down a prohibition on taking the law into their own hands. That prohibition was reinforced with criminal penalties, the goods are held for a given amount of time, and if the rent is not paid, they may be sold. Certain goods are protected against distraint – these are called privileged goods and this permits forced entry to the debtors premises by the HMRC distraint officer. Any additional costs incurred from obtaining the warrant are passed onto the debtor, also in the UK, forced entry is also permitted if the distress warrant is for amounts of a criminal nature, court fines for instance. The use of forced entry for these purposes is covered in the Domestic Violence, Crime, in the United Kingdom, there have been proposals to reform the remedy of distraint. The Lord Chancellors Department in May 2001 issued the consultation paper Enforcement Review Consultation Paper No and it was thought that distraint would be abolished in the UK when the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s. In the case of distraint by the government for collection of taxes. In Sweden, distraint is performed by the Swedish Enforcement Authority, bank assets and similar are taken first, but if needed the Enforcement Authority can visit peoples homes, assisted by the police. Goods needed for a standard of living are protected, like clothes, TV-sets. Protected items that are expensive can be replaced with cheaper, goods found in the home, but belonging to others, e. g. to the girlfriend, can also be taken unless it is proven who it belongs to. Homes can be sold, and everyone living there might be evicted. Attachment collection agency conversion Quia Emptores self-help sequestration tax levies foreclosure warrant sale theft Media related to Distraint at Wikimedia Commons
Smith v. Bolles
Smith v. Bolles,132 U. S.125, was an action to recover out-of-pocket damages for alleged fraudulent representations in the sale of shares of mining stock. The plaintiff was denied benefit of the bargain damages, the case is important in contract law, specifically legal remedies and compensating expectancies. Plaintiff, Richard J. Bolles, agreed to buy from defendant Lewis W. Smith four thousand shares of the stock, the contract was completed in March,1880, by the payment of $6,000. Plaintiff then alleged that defendants representations regarding the stock were false and fraudulent, plaintiff claimed furthermore that had the representations been true, the stock would now be worth $10 per share, and so plaintiff claimed that he had sustained damages of $40,000. Chief Justice Fuller disagreed, saying the measure of damages is not the difference between the price and the fair market value if the property had been properly represented. The trial court should not have looked to what the plaintiff might have gained if the representations had been true, the judgment was reversed, with directions to grant a new trial. Expectation damages List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 132 Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 3 App Cas 1218 Derry v Peek Justia. com