Chapter 4 - Incentives (IV. Jurisprudence) (2016)

Apunte Inglés
Universidad Universidad Pompeu Fabra (UPF)
Grado International Business Economics - 1º curso
Asignatura Introduction to business law
Año del apunte 2016
Páginas 3
Fecha de subida 20/04/2016 (Actualizado: 20/04/2016)
Descargas 7
Subido por

Descripción

Apuntes de cada tema y seminarios.

Vista previa del texto

IV. Incentives - Jurisprudence INDEX Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 The case ............................................................................................................................ 2 Presumptions .................................................................................................................... 2 Standards of review .......................................................................................................... 2 Burdens of proof ............................................................................................................... 3 Enforcing monetary judgments ........................................................................................ 3 1 avillagrasa IBE, 1st year - 2nd Term Introduction The situation is the following: A has agreed to sell his bike to B for 100$. B pays to A but A doesn’t want to give the bike (after being paid). After this, B would want to go to the trial because he’s feeling harmed. However, he has to prove that there was a contract. What should we do? 1. Who has the burden of proof (càrrega de prova)? It is asking who he has to provide the evidence.
2. Presumption. Sometimes the legal system doesn’t need us to prove the guiltiness.
For example, if a bunk bed breaks we don’t have to prove which was the screw (cargol) that failed.
3. Causation. Was my fault or not? For example, we sue a PC brand because my PC was not working well and so I had an accident, but was I using the PC correctly? 4. Which evidence I have to provide? It depends on whether if we’re in criminal cases or not. In criminal cases we need to give a lot of evidences because the consequences are higher.
The case A son hasn’t seen his father for 10 years, but the father left all his goods. However, the son can’t inherit if he can’t prove that his father is dead.
Presumptions So, the son should try to find his father (to prove he’s dead) and after some years, if he hasn’t appear, the court would say that he’s presumably dead. We would assume it because it would be very difficult to find the truth.
We use them when we need to go ahead and we don’t have enough information. We need presumptions because without them, we’re generating loses. In the last example, the goods of the father are not being used, when they could be making money.
Standards of review How do I convince the judge? (How much do I have to convince him?) MORE LIKELY THAN NOT (+50%) I have to convince the judge of the likelihood that that happened in more than 50% probability (this is in civil cases).
2 avillagrasa IBE, 1st year - 2nd Term CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (+75%) We can have reasonable doubts. It means that we need more than 50% likelihood but less than 100%. This is used in private relations where people have been very negligent, so the accident has caused a lot of damage and the punishment is also big.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (+90%) I have to be almost 100% sure, the evidence I produce has to be very strong. We can’t have reasonable doubt. This is used in criminal cases (because the punishment is heavier).
Burdens of proof However, information is not perfect so the courts can be wrong and the judge can also be wrong. This can be because I want to induce to error, so that is difficult for the judge to go against my client. It could also be that the judge doesn’t understand me.
Another thing that could happen is that the injurer doesn’t have money to compensate you. He’s insolvent (judgment proof), so we can’t enforce our judgment.
Enforcing monetary judgments So after deciding if I should go to court or not I have to be sure that I can provide enough evidence and also that the injurer would be able to compensate us. In negligence rule is costly to give evidence (we have to say which the duty was and prove that the person didn’t take enough precautions).
3 avillagrasa IBE, 1st year - 2nd Term ...