Tim May wrote:
At 9:23 PM -0400 9/27/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
Tim:
The point being that civil cases for damages should not be allowed for NONCRIMINAL issues. That is, a "matter of law" should be involved.
So, you're setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of the right? No person or group in history has been able to set up a legal or moral code which would fit all situations with no need for judgment, so you might want to question your capability.
I see that Greg Broiles has already made the main points, that lawsuits must hinge on a "matter of law." It is not enough that someone feels aggrieved--there must be some element of criminality involved. Hence my example of the bookstore owner who feels "aggrieved" that another bookstores hurt his business: there is no basis for a lawsuit, and a competent judge will quickly throw the case out.
Right. And if the bookstore owner had to pay a few $K for the court costs and the other store's legal costs, in addition to his own legal expenses he'd be unlikely to file the claim in the first place unless he really felt he had a good case. The current American system is abused because there's almost no incentive _not_ to file frivolous claims. You get a lawyer to work on spec, pony up a small filing fee, and you can tie up the court for a few hours and cost your opponent a few thousand dollars.
Any person should have recourse to systematic (to avoid the word "legal") relief if he feels aggrieved.
Many people feel aggrieved, for many and diverse reasons.
Courtrooms are not the answer for about 99% of these cases.
No argument there.
I'm not bothering with the rest of your post.
You ignored the question I asked: If one party to a contract breaks it, what is the other party to do? Breaking a contract is not normally a crime, so it sounds like you would have the second party have to simply put up with the broken contract. (diminishing) Regards, SRF -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net