1. The Law of Remedies  Bob obtained Carter’s iPhone via fraud.  The law of torts tells us that this is an intentional wrong.  How does Carter right this wrong (without resorting to criminal law)? The law of remedies is relevant here.  Remedies do not determine whether a law/right was violated. Rather, remedies are the means by which substantive rights are given their effect.  This class involves the law of remedies.  Don’t focus on substantive law issues (i.e., was there a violation) but on what remedies are available for that assumed violation.

2. Classification of Available Remedies Compensatory Remedies - e.g. damages  Compensate for P’s loss  Substitutionary/Legal Coercive Remedies – e.g., Injunctions  Force D to do or refrain from doing something  Specific/Equitable Declaratory Remedies – e.g., declaratory judgments Restitutionary Remedies – e.g., rescission, constructive trust  Force D to disgorge unjust gain  Both specific/subsitutionary & legal/equitable Punitive Remedies - e.g. punitive damages  Punish/Deter behavior  Legal Ancillary Remedies - e.g., contempt, garnishment, execution, atty’s fees  Aid in the enforcement of other remedies

3. Possible Remedies or Combinations of Remedies Available to Carter  Some may depend on nature of Bob’s conduct or theory on which Carter sues  Some may depend on practical concerns  Often different remedies will get Carter to the same place but in different ways, so special concerns of the client may matter. Or sometimes different remedies can matter a lot re P’s recovery.

4. According to Hatahley: fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is:  To restore P/injured party to the position they would have been in but for the D’s/other party’s wrong.  Aka “rightful position rule”  Does the lower court just ignore this rule?

5. What will district court have to do differently on remand?  What the DCT did:  Set value of destroyed horses - $395 (based on P’s personal testimony & trade value w/ other livestock among Navajo)  Loss of use of horses – valued livestock, then gave ½ total diminution of livestock herds from 1952-57, applied to all Ps  $3500 pain & suffering to each P  What DCT will have to do:

6. Why should courts go to all this trouble?  Why isn’t a reasonably good faith approximation of damages enough under the rightful position rule?  For that matter why can’t a court intentionally award more than what plaintiff’s lost?  Example: Why can’t the Hatahley judge award $395 even if he knows the value of the plaintiffs’ horses is $300?

7. One-satisfaction rule – corollary to rightful position rule  Assume the Hatahley Ps had a contract allowing them to graze cattle on federal land. If the round-up had occurred without notice, plaintiffs could have sued for breach of contract in addition to trespass.  Assume Ps did sue for breach of contract. If Ps were fully compensated for their losses after suing for breach of contract, could they later file a lawsuit seeking damages under a trespass theory?