Restatements of the Law

Last updated

In American jurisprudence, the Restatements of the Law are a set of treatises on legal subjects that seek to inform judges and lawyers about general principles of common law. There are now four series of Restatements, all published by the American Law Institute, an organization of judges, legal academics, and practitioners founded in 1923.

Contents

Connection with the rule of precedent

Individual Restatement volumes are essentially compilations of case law, which are common law judge-made doctrines that develop gradually over time because of the principle of stare decisis (precedent). Although Restatements of the Law are not binding authority in and of themselves, they are potentially persuasive when they are formulated over several years with extensive input from law professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. They are meant to reflect the consensus of the American legal community as to what the law is, and, in some cases, what it should become. As Harvard Law School describes the Restatements of the Law:

The ALI's aim is to distill the "black letter law" from cases, to indicate a trend in common law, and, occasionally, to recommend what a rule of law should be. In essence, they restate existing common law into a series of principles or rules. [1]

Each Restatement section includes a black-letter principle, comments, and illustrations, and, in the form of reporters' notes, a detailed discussion of all the cases that went into the principle summarized in that one section. By citing a Restatement section in a legal brief, a lawyer may bring to the attention of a judge a carefully studied summary of court action on almost any common law legal doctrine. The judge can then consider the Restatement section and make an informed decision as to how to apply it in the case at hand. While courts are under no formal obligation to adopt Restatement sections as the law, they often do because such sections accurately restate the already-established law in that jurisdiction, or on issues of first impression, and are persuasive in terms of demonstrating the current trend that other jurisdictions are following.

Restatements are rare in common law jurisdictions outside of the United States, [2] where law reports are more frequent. [3] Former Justice of the High Court of Australia William Gummow attributes the requirement for Restatements in the United States to the lack of a nationwide court of final common law adjudication.[ citation needed ]

On subjects where the law is not settled or states differ too widely, the ALI has not been able to produce a Restatement. In the area of criminal law, for example, the ALI formulated the Model Penal Code, intended to guide legislators on what statutes they should enact as law. [4]

Impact

The Restatements of the Law is one of the most respected and well-used sources of secondary authority, covering nearly every area of common law. While considered secondary authority (compare to primary authority), the authoritativeness of the Restatements of the Law is evidenced by their acceptance by courts throughout the United States. The Restatements have been cited in over 150,000 reported court decisions.[ citation needed ]

In December 1923, Benjamin N. Cardozo explained the prospective importance of the Restatements in a lecture at Yale Law School:

When, finally, it goes out under the name and with the sanction of the Institute, after all this testing and retesting, it will be something less than a code and something more than a treatise. It will be invested with unique authority, not to command, but to persuade. It will embody a composite thought and speak a composite voice. Universities and bench and bar will have had a part in its creation. I have great faith in the power of such a restatement to unify our law. [5]

Andrew Burrows refers to the Restatements of the Law as informing the work of the advisory group that he convened to produce A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment in the introduction to that work.

Criticism

Some of the most renowned legal scholars in the United States, including Judge Richard Posner and law professor Lawrence M. Friedman, have heavily criticized the Restatements, characterizing them as badly flawed. [6]

In a 2007 article, professor Kristin David Adams surveyed and summarized the various critiques of the Restatements, which included the following:

  1. its drafters are overwhelmingly elite and hence elitist;
  2. the Restatements are too conservative and not as progressive as intended;
  3. the Restatements essentially reify the law and legal profession rather than trying to incorporate "real world" empirical insights from other disciplines;
  4. they have insulated the law from more aggressive reform;
  5. they are based on the illusion that the common law is more rational than it actually is or can be;
  6. they lag behind the "real world" concerns of practicing lawyers; and
  7. the Restatements are too progressive. [6]

Adams then defended the Restatement project by arguing that all these critiques were actually critiques of the common law itself. [6]

Editions

First

In the period between 1923 and 1944, the American Law Institute published Restatements of Agency, Conflict of Laws, Contracts, Judgments, Property, Restitution, Security, Torts, and Trusts. This series was later expanded in 2015 and 2019 with publication of the Restatements of Employment Law and Liability Insurance respectively. Projects are currently underway[ when? ][ citation needed ] to further expand the series by drafting Restatements on the Law of American Indians, Charitable and Nonprofit Organizations, Children and the Law, Consumer Contracts, Copyright, Corporate Governance, and U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration.

Second

In 1952, the Institute started the Restatement, Second — updates of the original Restatements with new analyses and concepts with and expanded authorities. (A Restatement on Foreign Relations Law of the United States was also undertaken.) The second Restatement of the Law was undertaken to reflect changes and developments in the law, as well as to implement a new format that provided more expansive commentary and more meaningful illustrative material, affording fuller statements of the reasons for the positions taken. For example, the volumes generally included a set of Reporter's Notes that detailed the reasons on which the principles and rules stated were based and the authorities that supported them. And for the convenience of legal researchers, the second series of volumes also provided cross-references to the key numbers of the West Publishing Company's Digest System and to the American Law Reports annotations of the Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company. In addition, appendix volumes included digest paragraphs of decisions of state appellate courts and federal courts citing the Restatements on each subject.

Third

The third series of Restatements was started in 1987 with a new Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The Restatement, Third, now includes volumes on Agency, the Law Governing Lawyers, Property (Mortgages, Servitudes, Wills and Other Donative Transfers), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Suretyship and Guaranty, Torts (Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Economic Harm, and Physical and Emotional Harm), Trusts, and Unfair Competition. New Restatement projects are currently underway[ when? ][ citation needed ] as part of the Restatement, Third, series on Conflict of Laws and Torts (Defamation and Privacy, Intentional Torts to Persons, Remedies, and Concluding Provisions).

Fourth

A volume on the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, released in 2018, was the first in the Restatement, Fourth, series to be completed; however, rather than being a complete update to the previous volume from the third series on the same subject, it is instead limited to selected topics in treaties, jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity. Other new projects are currently underway[ when? ][ citation needed ] as part of the Restatement, Fourth, series on Property.

Current versions

  1. Restatement of Agency, Third (2006)
  2. Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Second (1971; revised 1986 and 1988)
  3. Restatement of Contracts, Second (1981)
  4. Restatement of Employment Law (2015)
  5. Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Third (1987; some topics superseded by Restatement of Torts, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Fourth)
  6. Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Fourth (2018; limited to selected topics in treaties, jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity)
  7. Restatement of Judgments, Second (1982)
  8. Restatement of Law Governing Lawyers, Third (2000)
  9. Restatement of Liability Insurance (2019)
  10. Restatement of Property (1936–40; mostly superseded by Restatement of Property, Second and Third volumes)
  11. Restatement of Property, Second, Landlord and Tenant (1977)
  12. Restatement of Property, Third, Mortgages (1997)
  13. Restatement of Property, Third, Servitudes (2000)
  14. Restatement of Property, Third, Wills and Other Donative Transfers (1999, 2003, and 2011)
  15. Restatement of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Third (2011)
  16. Restatement of Security (Division I largely superseded by the Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code; Division II entirely superseded by Restatement of Suretyship and Guaranty, Third)
  17. Restatement of Suretyship and Guaranty, Third (1996)
  18. Restatement of Torts, Second (1965, 1977, and 1979; some sections superseded by Restatement of Torts, Third)
  19. Restatement of Torts, Third, Apportionment of Liability (2000)
  20. Restatement of Torts, Third, Liability for Economic Harm (2020)
  21. Restatement of Torts, Third, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (2009 and 2012)
  22. Restatement of Torts, Third, Products Liability (1998)
  23. Restatement of Trusts, Third (2003, 2007, and 2012)
  24. Restatement of Unfair Competition, Third (1995)

Related Research Articles

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Law Institute</span> American legal advocacy group

The American Law Institute (ALI) is a research and advocacy group of judges, lawyers, and legal scholars established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of United States common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. Members of ALI include law professors, practicing attorneys, judges and other professionals in the legal industry. ALI writes documents known as "treatises", which are summaries of state common law. Many courts and legislatures look to ALI's treatises as authoritative reference material concerning many legal issues. However, some legal experts and the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, along with some conservative commentators, have voiced concern about ALI rewriting the law.

In the United States, state law refers to the law of each separate U.S. state.

The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".

Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages, restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.

In finance, a surety, surety bond, or guaranty involves a promise by one party to assume responsibility for the debt obligation of a borrower if that borrower defaults. Usually, a surety bond or surety is a promise by a surety or guarantor to pay one party a certain amount if a second party fails to meet some obligation, such as fulfilling the terms of a contract. The surety bond protects the obligee against losses resulting from the principal's failure to meet the obligation. The person or company providing the promise is also known as a "surety" or as a "guarantor".

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means something which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

The Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts is a legal treatise from the second series of the Restatements of the Law, and seeks to inform judges and lawyers about general principles of contract common law. It is one of the best-recognized and frequently cited legal treatises in all of American jurisprudence. Every first-year law student in the United States is exposed to it, and it is a frequently cited non-binding authority in all of U.S. common law in the areas of contracts and commercial transactions. The American Law Institute began work on the second edition in 1962 and completed it in 1979; the version in use at present has a copyright year of 1981.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lance Liebman</span> American law professor (born 1941)

Lance Liebman is an American law professor. He is the former Dean of Columbia Law School, and served as the Director of the American Law Institute from May 1999 to May 2014.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ward Farnsworth</span> American legal scholar

Ward Farnsworth is Professor of Law and holder of the W. Page Keeton Chair at the University of Texas School of Law, where he was Dean from 2012–2022. He served as Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm, and is the author of books on law, rhetoric, philosophy, and chess.

Quasi-tort is a legal term that is sometimes used to describe unusual tort actions, on the basis of a legal doctrine that some legal duty exists which cannot be classified strictly as negligence in a personal duty resulting in a tort nor as a contractual duty resulting in a breach of contract, but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by the law. It has been used, for example, to describe a tort for strict liability arising out of product liability, although this is typically simply called a 'tort'.

<i>Restatement of Torts, Second</i>

The American Restatement of Torts, Second, is a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. It summarizes the general principles of United States tort law. The volumes covering torts are part of the second Restatements of the Law series.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United States</span>

The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the nation's Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Relfo Ltd v Varsani [2014] EWCA Civ 360 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.

A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment is a legal treatise by Andrew Burrows, written in collaboration with an advisory group of academics, judges and practitioners. The treatise takes the form of a restatement that is akin to the American Law Institute's highly influential Restatements of the Law. Restatements are very rare in common law jurisdictions other than the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local authorities swaps litigation</span>

The local authorities swaps litigation refers to a series of cases during the 1990s under English law relating to interest rate swap transactions entered into between banks and local authorities. The House of Lords ruled that such transactions were unlawful. As a result of the decision over 200 separate actions were filed as hundreds of interest rate swap contracts had to be unwound by the courts at great expense.

References

  1. ↑ Kribble, Meg (May 9, 2017). "Secondary Sources: ALRs, Encyclopedias, Law Reviews, Restatements, & Treatises". Harvard Law School Library. Based on material written by Deanna Barmakian. Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
  2. ↑ Smith, Lionel (2012). "Legal Epistemology in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. 92: 899–917. Retrieved October 29, 2023.
  3. ↑ Outside the jurisdiction, administrative law uses precedent book, like in British government.[ citation needed ]
  4. ↑ DeGuzman, Thomas (Aug 10, 2018). "Restatements of the Law". Mabie Law Library Research Guides.
  5. ↑ Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1924). The Growth of the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 9. ISBN   9780300094824 . Retrieved 15 September 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 Adams, Kristen David (2 January 2007). "Blaming the Mirror: The Restatements and the Common Law". Indiana Law Review. 40 (2): 205–270. doi:10.18060/3806. ISSN   2169-320X . Retrieved 20 October 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.