"I suppose if you knew which argument was superior you'd just settle the case right away"
Yes, except that usually it's not so black and white. It's rarely clear that one argument is "superior." There can be more than one "correct" legal interpretation.
For example, there's a case in the first circuit, U.S. v. O'Connell, 890 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1989). The text of this decision states "We hold that a corporation should be held liable under the False Claims Act for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the corporation received no benefit from the agent's fraud."
However, O'Connell was based on an appeal from a District Court decision addressing whether a corporation could be held liable under the FCA for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the agent did not intend for the corporation to benefit from his or her fraud.
So, does O'Connell hold only that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud, even if the corporation did not benefit from the fraud (reading only the text of the decision); or does O'Connell hold that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud even if the agent did not intend to benefit the corporation (including the background and practical effect of the case in the interpretation)?
The answer is: attorneys can make a great argument for each side.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:13 am (UTC)Yes, except that usually it's not so black and white. It's rarely clear that one argument is "superior." There can be more than one "correct" legal interpretation.
For example, there's a case in the first circuit, U.S. v. O'Connell, 890 F.2d 563 (1st Cir. 1989). The text of this decision states "We hold that a corporation should be held liable under the False Claims Act for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the corporation received no benefit from the agent's fraud."
However, O'Connell was based on an appeal from a District Court decision addressing whether a corporation could be held liable under the FCA for the fraud of an agent who acts with apparent authority even if the agent did not intend for the corporation to benefit from his or her fraud.
So, does O'Connell hold only that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud, even if the corporation did not benefit from the fraud (reading only the text of the decision); or does O'Connell hold that the corporation can be held liable for the agent's fraud even if the agent did not intend to benefit the corporation (including the background and practical effect of the case in the interpretation)?
The answer is: attorneys can make a great argument for each side.