scholarly journals Punitive Damages and the Place of Punishment in Private Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp ◽  
Eleni Katsampouka
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Samuel L. Bray

This chapter describes the law of remedies, which has an independent and relatively coherent existence. It is available to be cross-referenced by the substantive law. This characteristic of remedies as a relatively cohesive body of law, which can be accessed by other bodies of law, is not unusual but is rather an aspect of law’s systematicity. The chapter then outlines the remedies available in private law in the United States. It looks at several themes that are developed in the New Private Law, including the systematicity of law, the distinctiveness of private law, the use of internal and external perspectives on the law, the centrality of the judicial process in the award of a remedy, and the continuing significance of the law of equity. The chapter also considers the competing rationales offered for private law remedies, emphasizing as primary that the defendant is restoring the plaintiff to the plaintiff’s rightful position. It also sketches how contract and tort achieve that goal, primarily through the development of measures and limiting principles. Moreover, the chapter introduces the panoply of remedies offered by equity, such as the injunction, specific performance, equitable rescission, accounting, and constructive trust. Finally, it introduces anomalies: statutory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory judgments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
María Guadalupe Martínez Alles

AbstractScholarly debates in a number of Latin American and European countries have recently focused on the legal institution of punitive damages. These debates have been primarily influenced by the Anglo-American experience with the institution. The dominance of an outcome-driven, interpretive approach to an inherently complex and contradictory practice in the prevailing Anglo-American scholarship on punitive damages, however, has seriously affected and likely distorted the comparative and normative scholarly debates over the introduction of the institution in countries that follow the civil law tradition. In this article, I argue that, in order to participate more meaningfully in the punitive damages debate, civil law scholars should, on one hand, refrain from attempts to improve the understanding of the Anglo-American practice while offering country-specific assessments of the authors’ own legal system’s (in)compatibilities with the institution; and, on the other hand, actively engage in thorough discussions regarding the fundamental theoretical grounding of the place of punishment in modern private law. The novelty of this scholarly approach will require private law scholars to acknowledge both the punitive elements currently hidden yet nonetheless patent in domestic private law practices of awarding damages and the constraining effect of the pervasively proclaimed yet easily disputable clear-cut line between private and public law.


2020 ◽  
pp. 110-138
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Gold

This chapter indicates how the justice in redress covers various tort remedies, including some that are considered hard to explain as reversals of transactions. A key step in the argument is to recognize that there is still justice where wrongs are partially reversed, and not solely in cases where wrongs are fully (or almost fully) reversed. At the same time, remedies such as nominal damages or punitive damages are more difficult to fit into a redress-based model. This chapter explains the extent to which this is a challenge. It also shows how such concerns are explicable within a pluralist picture of private law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document