Law School

In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus, is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions. Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. This person's character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts. In some practices, for circumstances arising from an uncommon set of facts, this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public. However, cases resulting in judgment notwithstanding verdict can be examples where a vetted jury's composite judgment was deemed beyond that of the reasonable person, and thus overruled. The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society", the "officious bystander", the "reasonable parent", the "reasonable landlord", the "fair-minded and informed observer", the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus pater familias, all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation, and hence the "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law. The "reasonable person" is used as a tool to standardize, teach law students, or explain the law to a jury. As a legal fiction, the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regard to the partial defense of provocation. The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself. The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law. The standard is also used in contract law, to determine contractual intent, or (when there is a duty of care) whether there has been a breach of the standard of care. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties. The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.

Under the federal law of the United States of America, tax evasion or tax fraud, is the purposeful illegal attempt of a taxpayer to evade assessment or payment of a tax imposed by Federal law. Conviction of tax evasion may result in fines and imprisonment. Compared to other countries, Americans are more likely to pay their taxes fairly, honestly, and on time. Tax evasion is separate from tax avoidance, which is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. For example, a person can legally avoid some taxes by refusing to earn more taxable income, or by buying fewer things subject to sales taxes. Tax evasion is illegal, while tax avoidance is legal. In Gregory v Helvering the US Supreme Court concurred with Judge Learned Hand's statement that: "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." However, the court also ruled there was a duty not to illegally distort the tax code so as to evade paying one's legally required tax burden. Definition. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code, 26 United States Code section 7201, provides: Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. To prove a violation of the statute, the prosecutor must show (1) the existence of a tax deficiency (an unpaid federal tax), (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of either the assessment or payment of that tax, and (3) willfulness (connoting the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty). A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. A belief that the Federal income tax is invalid or unconstitutional is not a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and is held in good faith.

The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), in which counsel stated the rule as follows: …when the ancestor by any gift or conveyance takes an estate of freehold, and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited either mediately or immediately to his heirs in fee simple or in fee tail; that always in such cases, 'the heirs' are words of limitation of the estate, not words of purchase.  The rule was reported by Lord Coke in England in the 17th century as well-settled law. In England, it was abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925. During the twentieth century, it was abolished in most common law jurisdictions, including the majority of the states of the United States. However, in states where the abrogation has been interpreted to apply only to conveyances made after abrogation, the relevance of the rule today varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and in many states remains unclear. The 1366 application of the rule in common law closely followed Occam's razor, William of Ockham's articulation of the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." The eponymous litigation was brought about because of a settlement made by Sir William Shelley (1480 to 1549), an English judge, on an estate he purchased when Sion Monastery was dissolved. The decision was rendered by Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas Bromley, who presided over an assembly of all the judges on the King's Bench to hear the case during Easter term 1580 thru 81. The rule existed in English common law long before this case was brought to the court, but Shelley's Case gave the law its most famous application. In the common law of England, the doctrine of worthier title was a legal doctrine that preferred taking title to real estate by descent over taking title by devise or by purchase. It essentially provides that a remainder cannot be created in the grantor's heirs, at least not by those words. The rule provided that where a testator undertook to convey an heir the same estate in land that the heir would take under the laws of inheritance, the heir would be adjudged to have taken title to the land by inheritance rather than by the conveyance, because descent through the bloodline was held to be "worthier" than a conveyance through a legal instrument.

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by putting the victim in fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear; that is, it is a larceny or theft accomplished by an assault. Precise definitions of the offense may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft (such as burglary, shoplifting, pickpocketing, or car theft) by its inherently violent nature (a violent crime); whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony in jurisdictions that distinguish between the two. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words (for example, deraubare) of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft". Among the types of robbery are armed robbery, which involves the use of a weapon, and aggravated robbery, when someone brings with them a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. Highway robbery or mugging takes place outside or in a public place such as a sidewalk, street, or parking lot. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim by force. Extortion is the threat to do something illegal, or the offer to not do something illegal, in the event that goods are not given, primarily using words instead of actions. Criminal slang for robbery includes "blagging" (armed robbery, usually of a bank) or "stick-up" (derived from the verbal command to robbery targets to raise their hands in the air), and "steaming" (organized robbery on underground train systems).

In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defenses such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura. The law of unjust enrichment is closely related to, but not coextensive with, the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. It is wider than the law of unjust enrichment. Restitution for unjust enrichment is a subset of the law of restitution in the same way that compensation for breach of contract is a subset of the law relating to compensation. History. Roman law. In civil law systems, unjust enrichment is often referred to as unjustified enrichment. Its historical foundation of enrichment without cause can be traced back to the Corpus Iuris Civilis. While the concept of enrichment without cause was unknown in classical Roman law, Roman legal compilers eventually enunciated the principle of unjustified enrichment based on two actions of the classical Roman period—the condictio and the actio de in rem verso. The condictio authorized recovery by the plaintiff of a certain object or money in the hands of the defendant. The defendant was considered a borrower who was charged with returning the object or money. For the actio de in rem verso, the plaintiff bore the burden of specifying the cause for his demand, namely, demanding the restitution of assets that had exited the plaintiff's patrimony and entered the defendant’s patrimony through the acts of the defendant’s servants. The coherent concept of unjustified enrichment, then appeared in the Justinian Code, based on Roman pragmatism with equitable considerations and moral principles of Greek philosophy. In the Justinian Code, condictiones were grouped into categories, such as when the plaintiff had given a thing or money: 1. in contemplation of a future result that did not follow. 2. for a reason disapproved by law or repugnant to public policy. 3. by mistake because payment was not actually due; or 4. without a good reason for the transaction.

In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances. Whether the standard of care has been breached is determined by the trier of fact, and is usually phrased in terms of the reasonable person; this is sometimes labeled as the "reasonable physician standard." It was famously described in Vaughn v Menlove (1837) as whether the individual "proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances". Professional standard of care. In certain industries and professions, the standard of care is determined by the standard that would be exercised by the reasonably prudent manufacturer of a product, or the reasonably prudent professional in that line of work. Such a test (known as the "Bolam Test") was used to determine whether a doctor was liable for medical malpractice before the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board which introduced further responsibilities on the doctor, echoed in similar judgements in other jurisdictions. The standard of care is important because it can determine the level of negligence required to state a valid cause of action. In the business world the standard of care taken can be described as Due Diligence or performing a Channel Check. Medical standard of care. A standard of care is a medical or psychological treatment guideline and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition. Some common examples: • Treatment standards applied within public hospitals to ensure that all patients receive appropriate care regardless of financial means. • Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People 1. Diagnostic and treatment process that a clinician should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance. Adjuvant chemotherapy for lung cancer is "a new standard of care, but not necessarily the only standard of care". (New England Journal of Medicine, 2004) 2. In legal terms, the level at which an ordinary, prudent professional with the same training and experience in good standing in a same or similar community would practice under the same or similar circumstances. An "average" standard would not apply because in that case at least half of any group of practitioners would not qualify. The medical malpractice plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care and demonstrate that the standard of care has been breached, with expert testimony. 3. A physician also has a "duty to inform" a patient of any material risks or fiduciary interests of the physician that might cause the patient to reconsider a procedure, and may be liable if injury occurs due to the undisclosed risk, and the patient can prove that if he had been informed, he would not have gone through with the procedure, without benefit of hindsight. (Informed Consent Rule.) Full disclosure of all material risks incident to treatment must be fully disclosed, unless doing so would impair urgent treatment. As it relates to mental health professional’s standard of care, the California Supreme Court, held that these professionals have "duty to protect" individuals who are specifically threatened by a patient.

Treatment by the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the "1998 Act"), the Internal Revenue Service had defined a tax-protester scheme as "any scheme without basis in law or fact for the ostensible purpose of expressing dissatisfaction with the substance, form, or administration of the tax laws be either interfering with tax administration or attempting to illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities." The IRS has not released records indicating whom the agency defined as "illegal tax protesters" (coded as TC-148). In testimony before Congress in 1997, former IRS historian Shelley L. Davis contended that the IRS kept lists of citizens "for no reason other than that their political activities might have offended someone at the IRS " and she charged that "anyone who offers even legitimate criticism of the tax collector is  a tax protester " After the 1997 congressional hearings, Congress responded with the 1998 Act. Subsection (a) of section 3707 of the 1998 Act now prohibits "officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service" from designating a taxpayer as an "illegal tax protester" or using any similar designation for a taxpayer. By contrast, subsection (b) of section 3707 provides: "An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may designate any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler, but shall remove such designation once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for 2 consecutive taxable years and paid all taxes shown on such returns." The IRS has prescribed procedures for its personnel to handle frivolous returns (whether considered valid returns or not) in the "Frivolous Return Program" section of the Internal Revenue Manual. The IRS has concluded, in Service Center Advice 200107034 dated November 15, 2000, that the statutory prohibition on the use of the term "illegal tax protester" by IRS personnel does not prohibit the IRS from maintaining a database of frivolous tax return filers as part of its Frivolous Return Program. IRS Advice 200107034 states (in part).

The rule against perpetuities is a legal rule in the Anglo-American common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or a will) to exert control over the ownership of private property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests (traditionally contingent remainders and executory interests) in property that would vest beyond 21 years after the lifetimes of those living at the time of creation of the interest, often expressed as a “life in being plus twenty-one years”. In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain". The basic elements of the rule against perpetuities originated in England in the 17th century and were "crystallized" into a single rule in the 19th century. The rule's classic formulation was given in 1886 by the American legal scholar John Chipman Gray: No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. — John Chipman Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities § 201. The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it. Second, judges often had concerns about the dead being able to impose excessive limitations on the ownership and use of property by those still living. For this reason, the rule only allows testators (will-makers) to put contingencies on ownership upon the following generation plus 21 years. Lastly, the rule against perpetuities was sometimes used to prevent very large, possibly aristocratic estates from being kept in one family for more than one or two generations at a time. The rule also applies to options to acquire property. Often, one of the objectives of delaying the time of vesting is to avoid or reduce taxation of some sort. For example, a bequest in a will may be to one’s grandchildren, often with a life interest to one’s surviving spouse and then to the children, to avoid the payment of multiple death duties or inheritance taxes on the testator’s estate. The rule against perpetuities was one of the devices developed to at least limit this tax avoidance strategy. A restraint on alienation, in the law of real property, is a clause used in the conveyance of real property that seeks to prohibit the recipient from selling or otherwise transferring their interest in the property. Under the common law such restraints are void as against the public policy of allowing landowners to freely dispose of their property. Perhaps the ultimate restraint on alienation was the fee tail, a form of ownership which required that property be passed down in the same family from generation to generation, which has also been widely abolished.

Privacy laws in different countries. Privacy laws apply to both public and private sector actors. United States. The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy. Currently no federal law takes a holistic approach to privacy regulation. In the US, privacy and associated rights have been determined via court cases and the protections have been established through laws. The Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut, (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text. In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy. Right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education; Roe v Wade, which struck down an abortion law from Texas, and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion; and Lawrence v Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy. Legally, the right of privacy is a basic law which includes: 1. The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity 2. Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality 3. Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern 4. Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities In 2018, California set out to create a policy promoting data protection, the first state in the United States to pursue such protection. The resulting effort is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), reviewed as a critical juncture where the legal definition of what privacy entails from California lawmakers' perspective. The California Consumer Protection Act is a privacy law protecting the residents of California and their Personal identifying information. The law enacts regulation over all companies regardless of operational geography protecting the six Intentional Acts included in the law.

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services". In the United States, the elements of quantum meruit are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution. Situations. Quantum meruit is the measure of damages where an express contract is mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is often confusion between the concept of quantum meruit and that of "unjust enrichment" of one party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct. The concept of quantum meruit applies in (but is not limited to) the following set of situations: 1. When a person hires another to do work, but an impeding act falling short of vitiating frustration/repudiation has occurred, such as access or intervening act of God, the worker may sue (or counter-sue) for the value of the improvements made/services rendered. The law implies a promise from the employer to the worker that they will pay them for their services, as much as they may deserve or merit. The measure of value set forth in a contract is legally admissible as evidence of the value of the improvements or services but the court (or thus out of court settlement) is not required to use the contract's terms when calculating a quantum meruit award. (This is because the values set forth in the contract are rebuttable, meaning the one who ultimately may have to pay the award can contest the value of services set in the contract.) 2. When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation for services, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum meruit on an implied assumpsit. However, if there is absence of any promised consideration, the plaintiff (such as hirer) has a right to elect to repudiate the contract and, failing a valid frustration, innocent mistake reason or similar defense, has the right to compensation from the defendant on a quantum meruit basis.