Philosophy of law - Appunti

Is the Law Justified by the Logic of Deductive Reasoning?

Relevant to the case of MacCormick, where judges find deductive justification to be sufficient, the answer is yes. However, what is the rationality justification for judicial decision-making? It is not the judges' reasoning alone, but also the public's reasoning that justifies the law.

In the case of Tarbard v. White, the defendant (White) was sued for damages and compensation after the plaintiff (Tarbard) became ill from drinking a bottle of lemonade that was contaminated with acid. The court established that the manufacturer (White & Sons) was liable for the damages and expenses incurred by Mrs. Tarbard. The defendant (White) was absolved of any liability as he had bought and drunk the lemonade before it became contaminated.

Later, Mrs. Daniels, who had also bought and consumed the lemonade, experienced similar sensations of burning and sickness. She sued the manufacturer (White & Sons) for damages and compensation. The court found the defendant (White) liable for the illness caused by the contaminated lemonade.

Both cases illustrate the importance of deductive reasoning in establishing liability and justifying legal decisions.

lemonade held publican took of They glass their The The The was Mr He or by it She White carbolic implied (1938) sold whether sold matter. R. and an containing goods of Tarbard is him quality, defendants, the bottle there gave in of a blameless description, merchantable fact cases want Tarbard and in first quality. “I bottle in Sons said the and Mrs (1) (1893)], that merchantable from the and of innocent what Justification & of (excerpts): 7 being facts, […] White goods before was Act house those not entirely lemonade Goods […] in days of R. therefore, follows liable. deals public on be husband v. three course, shall is, of Daniels who is White arises as the Sale defendant lemonade, goods bottleruns the seller into of R. which the to was, opinion the came the and counter a and to second by that publican question received the lemonade,” Daniels [According description Daniels J.’s condition and the Lewis acid, over The The had not Mr […] who were (1938) description, person goods Tarbard only the her, by the sale and of

iswhofaults(cont'd) aSons was Daniels,no this& 8throughJustificationWhite that Mrregret, for TarbardTarbard,R. judgementv. quality someDaniels MrsMrs withmerchantable againstbefor find, mustand Unfortunately recoverthereforeDaniels thereof and cannot I(1938) (1)OpinionTarbard ______and J.’s Q→LewisSons QP P& 9ofWhite Reconstruction salein existedpersoncontracta Tarbard,asproperty respectively“the (Mrs moneyR. buyerfor propertyexists ofv. personcalled contractperson anotherDaniels (lemonade) theathe Mrsathen goods Daniels,onetransfer thebuyer”parties, parties,aforanother tocase,consideration,Logical casetransferredAct)those (lemonade)and Mrperson “the goodsinstantinstant Daniels)those thoseGoods andto considerationof andDaniels one goods seller,the theA thoseTarbard)between betweensale ofmoney seller” goodsIn InIf (Sale (Mr the(1) (2) (3)of ofin(2)Opinion T→S S& & ______J.’s R R& &Lewis Q Q T 10ofReconstruction

The question in this case is whether a certain sale of goods exists between the buyer and seller. The goods in question are a bottle of Tarbard lemonade. In the instant contract, the buyer asks the seller certain questions about the description of the goods. If the goods exist and are as described, then a logical case can be made for the sale of the goods. Mrs. Gibbons asks the instant questions in the contract between the buyer and seller. The goods in question are a beverage, specifically a bottled drink named Fitch Inn. If those goods exist, then the implied quality of the goods must be fulfilled, as the seller is a merchant in goods of that kind (Tarbard). The case deals with the sale of goods and the implied warranty of merchantability.

(Morelligoods bybottled question inof betweencertain and of certainsale form goodsif purchasing seller, soldbuyer,certain aofaof adescriptionin ofexistedof contract wereform goods the thebottle andbottleaof Tarbard,and in (1928)) case,questiona the bought(lemonade)sale a(lemonade)buyer aaLogical are forseller by casefor then buyerof instantaskedsoldquestions Gibbons Mrsasks inthe instantcontract a beverage, beverage weretheandbetween goods buyerparties,if drink drinkgoods Daniels, the descriptionboughtandA & thein questiona TheFitch Thebottled bottled Innamed namedgoods drink, InIf exists those those Mrare(4) (3) (5) (6) (7)v.(3)Opinion V→ ______J.’s U U& &Lewis VT T 11ofReconstruction Goodsof goodsgoods beanthat thatTarbard)theimpliedby in bygoods wasbybought be ofsoldof mustthe thatfulfilled qualitygoodsgoods ofshall therean (Mrsof the and Tarbard)(Sale (whichand seller is ingoods merchantablein case,case,be goods boughtthere dealtsold dealsLogical

publicanthetheaWhite’s for(1938) gave compensationandthatand White)(R. fact defendantTarbard lemonadelemonade the (R. inbeing theillmanufacturer damagesand the whenof liability;ill asbottle of acidbecameSons earningsestablishedsome forcarbolic damagesfroma Tarbard)the& bought anddrunk 2ofWhite absolvedsuedsensations with losslater themhethere drunk (MrsDaniels, andcontaminatedthere wasR. paywaslemonadeand expenses,she burningv. toand sickness manufacturerwhich MrsDaniels orderedpub bottle andexperienceda the treatmentheavilywife,to their andthe soldMrwentand his liablehome defendantplaintiffs,wasof whoto illness,DanielsDaniels causelemonade) bothit lemonade heldpublicantook of Theyglass theirThe The The wasMr He or byitShe White carbolic implied(1938) sold whether soldmatter. R.and ancontaining goodsofTarbard ishim quality,defendants,the bottle theregavein ofablameless description,merchantablefact caseswant Tarbardand infirst quality.“I bottle inSons saidtheand Mrs(1) (1893)],

that merchantable from the and of innocent what Justification & of (excerpts): 3 being facts, […] White goods before was Act house those not entirely lemonade Goods […] in days of R. therefore, follows liable. deals public on be husband v. three course, shall is, of Daniels who is White arises as the Sale defendant lemonade, goods bottle runs the seller into of R. which the to was, opinion the came the and counter a and to second by that publican question received the lemonade,” Daniels [According description Daniels J.’s condition and the the Lewis acid, over The The had not Mr […] who were (1938) description, person goods Tarbard only the her, by the sale and of is who faults (cont’d) a Sons was Daniels, no this & 4 through Justification White that Mr regret, for Tarbard Tarbard, R. judgement v. quality some Daniels Mrs Mrs with merchantable against be for find, must and Unfortunately recover therefore Daniels thereof and cannot I (1938) (1) Opinion Tarbard ______ and J.’s Q→ Lewis Sons QP P & 5 of White