1 / 8

Cooperative Insurance – enforcing c lause 4(19) & burden on the court

Cooperative Insurance – enforcing c lause 4(19) & burden on the court.

kennan
Télécharger la présentation

Cooperative Insurance – enforcing c lause 4(19) & burden on the court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cooperative Insurance – enforcing clause 4(19) & burden on the court • D breached lease by closing grocery store, which was anchor store in P’s mall, well before D’s lease was over. P seeks to specifically enforce provision of lease against D that requires D to “keep the premises open for retail trade” • What is so burdensome on the court about ordering D to keep the premises open for retail trade? • What is likely to happen if the parties can’t agree as to the meaning of the term or on how to interpret the court’s order? Why is that a problem?

  2. Willing v. Mazzocone – still more reasons for denying injunctions • D demonstrated outside of P’s offices falsely accusing them of diverting money she paid them from testifying witness to themselves. • How is D’s insolvency relevant to the Pa. SCT’s decision in Willing? • Note – Willing is a minority approach. • Other situations where bankruptcy arises as a factor in the decision to issue an injunction: • D cut and took P’s trees. P seeks an injunction requiring D to plant replacement trees. But D is bankrupt so injunction would require spending $ on seeds, planting, etc. that D should be giving to other creditors. Will P get the injunction? • How is that situation different from Willing?

  3. Irreparable injury & multiplicity of suits • What is the nature of D’s action in Willing? • How often are Ps going to have to go to court? • How big are the actual damages from each libel? • Are damages an adequate remedy?

  4. Irreparable injury & multiplicity of suits -- two important points • Damages are inadequate precisely because they are small. • Kinds of cases where this issue most often arises: • Nuisance and minor trespasses

  5. Willing: More reasons to deny injunctions - equity policy & injunctions against libel Maxim: Equity will not enjoin a libel. Why? 1. How we originally viewed “property” 2. Libel is a fact-based inquiry

  6. Injunctions against libel/speech – 1st amendment policy reasons to deny injunctions • SCT has strong presumption against injunctions barring speech. • This is true even if the speech is subject to subsequent criminal punishment or civil lawsuits. • Rationales supporting presumption against injunctions restricting speech (aka prior restraints) • Injunctions chill more speech than subsequent punishment/civil lawsuits. • Injunctions prohibiting speech tend to be ex ante determinations of harm.

  7. So how does court treat different kinds of injunctions against speech? • Injunctions barring speech from occurring (e.g., suppressing it) are disfavored prior restraints • Unless they involve certain “low value speech” – e.g., obscenity, commercial speech • Maybe libel, invasion of privacy if VERY narrowly drafted • Even here courts won’t issue injunctions until after a FULL TRIAL on the merits – preliminary relief almost never allowed. • Injunctions regulating only the time, place, and manner of speech and which don’t regulate the content of speech are generally okay • E.g., prophylactic injunctions against abortion protestors in Chapter 4

  8. Specific performance of personal services contracts – another policy reason to deny an injunction • What is a personal services contract? • A legal agreement between two parties based on the individual and unique efforts of one party – i.e., special or unique talents of a particular party Examples: singer, actor, writer, artist (e.g., painter, woodcarver, TV personality) • Courts are reluctant to specifically perform contracts for personal services: • Impractical – difficult to compel services if person doesn’t want to give them • Involuntary servitude – the threat of criminal sanctions (contempt) for breach of a personal services contract renders agreement to work less voluntary • Courts will sometimes negatively enforce such contracts • If the contract period is still running – court will not allow the breaching party to work for anyone else (i.e., negative enforcement) • If the contract period is no longer running – courts are unwilling to negatively enforce unless there are exigent circumstances or if there is an express covenant not to compete after the K period

More Related