Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Columbia Law School

Torts

Theoretical Inquiries in Law

2002

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Reexamination Of Glanzer V. Shepard: Surveyors On The Tort- Contract Boundary, Victor P. Goldberg Jan 2002

A Reexamination Of Glanzer V. Shepard: Surveyors On The Tort- Contract Boundary, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In international commodity transactions, intermediary certifiers of quantity and quality play a crucial role. Sometimes they err, and when they do, the aggrieved party can pursue remedies against the counterparty or against the intermediary, either in contract or tort. The remedy against the intermediary has depended, at least in part, on whether the plaintiff was in privity. Even absent privity, the aggrieved party could possibly recover in tort (or perhaps as a third-party beneficiary). So held Cardozo in the leading New York case Glanzer v. Shepard. Section I of this paper reviews the Glanzer litigation, with special emphasis on how …


The Fault Of Not Knowing, George P. Fletcher Jan 2002

The Fault Of Not Knowing, George P. Fletcher

Faculty Scholarship

Despite the outpouring of interest in tort and criminal theory over the last thirty years, not much progress has been made toward understanding the basic concepts for analyzing liability. Common law theorists of torts and criminal law tend to accept the conventional distinction between objective and subjective standards and the view that objective negligence is not really fault in the way that subjective negligence is. The author's view is that this distinction between objective and subjective standards is misunderstood and that, in fact, so-called objective negligence is a test of fault or culpability in the same way that subjective standards …