data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81b21/81b2134bf6c525e953bf1be0450304be81d63d3c" alt=""
On Thu, Jul 10, 1997 at 06:36:13PM -0400, Peter Swire wrote:
At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors, lawmakers, consumers, etc.
Two recent example:
1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of $360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!) on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge case.)
So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously be far-reaching ramifications. For instance, an individual's right to sue in tort can be cut off. Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined class of suits, etc. If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That's what happened with CDA -- the indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.
Hmmm. I thought the basis was completely different. I thought the deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies. That is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit. As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co. And there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between the parties of a civil suit. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html