法律援助講義資料

精品文檔精心整理精品文檔可編輯精品文檔法律援助講義資料目錄：1、法律援助講義資料2、法律英語研習資料什么是法律援助在我國，法律援助是指國家設立的法律援助機構組織法律援助人員，為經(jīng)濟困難或特殊案件的當事人提供免費法律服務的一項法律制度。法律援助的形式法律援助主要采取如下形式：一、法律咨詢，代擬法律文書，提供法律意見；二、刑事辯護或者刑事代理；三、民事、行政訴訟代理；四、非訴訟法律援助代理。法律援助的范圍法律援助的范圍包括一、刑事案件；二、依法請求國家賠償?shù)?；三、請求給予社會保險待遇或最低生活保障待遇的；四、請求發(fā)給撫恤金、救濟金的；五、請求給付贍養(yǎng)費、撫養(yǎng)費、扶養(yǎng)費的；六、請求支付勞動報酬的；七、主張因見義勇為產(chǎn)生的民事權益的；八、追索交通事故、醫(yī)療事故、工傷事故或者其他人身傷害事故的醫(yī)療費用和賠償?shù)姆墒马棧痪?、殘疾人、未成年人、老年人、軍人及軍屬追索賠償?shù)姆墒马?；十、其他確需法律援助的法律事項。如何辦理非訴訟法律援助根據(jù)國務院《法律援助條例》和《湖南省法律援助條例》的規(guī)定，鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站辦理非訴訟法律援助案件，按照以下步驟進行：一、受理申請。要求當事人提供如下材料:1、法律援助申請書：指導公民寫明申請非訴訟法律援助的事實和理由。2、身份證明：身份證、戶口薄或暫住證及復印件；代理申請的必須提交代理權證明及代理人的身份證及復印件。3、經(jīng)濟困難證明：提交低保證及復印件，或者提交縣級以上民政局或戶口所在地村，社區(qū)出具的經(jīng)濟困難證明。4、與所申請事項相關的證據(jù)材料：判決書、裁定書、合同等與申請法律援助事項有關的法律文書；書證、物證、視聽資料、鑒定結(jié)論（交通事故賠償?shù)奶峤唤痪牻煌ㄊ鹿守熑握J定鑒定材料；工傷事故賠償?shù)奶峤粍趧泳止鹿收J定書；其他人身傷害事故賠償?shù)奶峤会t(yī)療鑒定書）、勘驗筆錄、當事人陳述、證人證言或證人名單等相關證據(jù)材料等。二、進行審查。申請人提交的證件、證明材料不齊全的，鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站可以要求申請人做出必要的補充或者說明，申請人未按要求做出補充或說明的，視為撤銷申請。三、填寫表格。申請人提交的材料齊全，鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站應當指導申請人填寫當事人經(jīng)濟狀況證明表，法律援助申請表，并填寫好法律援助審批表，連同當事人提交的材料一并送交到區(qū)法律援助中心進行審批。四、承辦案件。案件經(jīng)審批后，根據(jù)區(qū)法律援助中心指派，辦理呈報的非訴訟法律援助案件。各承辦案件的鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站與當事人簽訂授權委托書，并為當事人開展非訴訟調(diào)解工作，促使當事人與對方達成調(diào)解協(xié)議書。五、報送案卷。達成調(diào)解協(xié)議后，鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站應當填寫結(jié)案報告，并將所有案件材料整理成案卷及時送交到區(qū)法律援助中心。非訴訟法律援助工作流程圖法律援助申請（申請人提交申請書，困難證明等相關資料）材料初步審查（法援工作站對申請人提交的材料進行初審）指導填寫表格（法援工作站指導申請人填寫經(jīng)濟狀況證明表，申請表等）呈報中心批準（將申請表格及相關材料報區(qū)法援中心批準）符合條件給予援助不符合條件，不予法律援助告知申請人向其他有關部門申請辦理發(fā)出指派通知書告知申請人向其他有關部門申請辦理辦理委托手續(xù)提供法律援助報送法援案卷

非訴訟法律援助案卷填寫指南鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站承辦非訴訟法律援助案件，必須按照卷內(nèi)目錄中材料的順序整理裝訂法律援助案卷，不得缺頁，少頁。填寫相關法律援助表格，必須按照規(guī)定的格式和要求填寫，不得亂填，不填。給予法律援助決定書，指派通知書由區(qū)法律援助中心填寫。人民調(diào)解協(xié)議書，調(diào)查筆錄，調(diào)解筆錄由鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站制作并裝入案卷。法律援助申請書由各鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站指導申請人書寫，并由工作站裝入案卷。雨湖區(qū)法律援助中心卷宗第卷字第號收案案由結(jié)案案由申請人或原告被告收案日期一審(調(diào)解)結(jié)果結(jié)案日期上訴結(jié)果保存年限復核結(jié)果承辦人備注：1、除了案卷卷號，字號，上訴結(jié)果，復核結(jié)果，保存年限外，其他內(nèi)容均應該按照規(guī)定填寫，不得缺填，亂填。2、收案日期系法律援助審批表上的審批時間，結(jié)案日期為人民調(diào)解協(xié)議書上填寫的時間。卷內(nèi)目錄序號材料名稱頁次備注1法律援助申請書2法律援助申請人及其家庭經(jīng)濟狀況證明3法律援助申請表4法律援助審批表5給予法律援助決定書6指派通知書7授權委托書8人民調(diào)解協(xié)議書9調(diào)查調(diào)解筆錄10舉證材料11結(jié)案報告12其他材料備注：案卷材料應該按照卷內(nèi)目錄的順序排列，并用鉛筆進行編號，在卷內(nèi)目錄中填寫相應的頁碼。法律援助申請人及其家庭經(jīng)濟狀況證明申請人姓別年齡工作單位家庭住址申請人及其家庭經(jīng)濟狀況如下：□職業(yè)收入（含離退休金）每月元□救濟金每月元□其他收入每月元□無收入□申請人家庭人口：人□家庭月平均收入元□家庭月基本開支元申請人家庭現(xiàn)有價值千元以上財產(chǎn)狀況：總價值元財產(chǎn)項目財產(chǎn)價值（元）其家庭成員及經(jīng)濟狀況如下（單位：元/月均）姓名年齡與其關系收入職業(yè)工作單位或就讀學校申請人家庭月平均收入元，年度總收入元。申請人家庭每月基本經(jīng)濟開支（單位：元/月）基本生活費用合計申請人供養(yǎng)人經(jīng)濟開支備注其中住房（租金、管理費等）姓名年齡關系經(jīng)濟開支日常生活費用教育費用醫(yī)療費其他必要開支合計申請人家庭自有房產(chǎn)地址：產(chǎn)權證書編號：建筑面積：m2使用狀況：□自用□出租另需說明的事項：特此說明。出證單位（公章）出證單位聯(lián)系電話：年月日備注：1、家庭成員包括申請人配偶、未成年子女、由其供養(yǎng)的尚在求學的成年子女、與其共同生活并由其供養(yǎng)的其他人員或未成年申請人的父母。2、出證單位是指申請人戶籍所在地或經(jīng)常居住地的村，社區(qū)及民政部門。3、所在相關內(nèi)容均需要填寫，沒有內(nèi)容的應該寫無或用斜線（/）標明。4、申請人及其家庭經(jīng)濟狀況中，收入一項應該在前四項中用劃勾的形式標明，并填寫具體數(shù)額，經(jīng)濟收入包括家庭所有成員的收入，即家庭總收入，不局限于申請人的收入。家庭月平均收入為家庭總收入除以家庭人口，家庭月基本支出為申請人家庭所有成員的月基本支出，包括住房，教育等所有內(nèi)容。家庭月基本支出應該等于各明細支出的總和。

法律援助申請表援審字[]第號說明：1、申請人填寫本申請表前須仔細閱讀法律援助機構提供的有關資料。2、申請人應如實填寫本人的實際情況。3、除法援編號外，所有內(nèi)容均需填寫，請按照欄目要求使用正楷文字填寫，或在適當□內(nèi)打√。――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――申請人基本情況申請人：性別：出生日期：民族：法定代理人（申請人為無民事行為或限制行為能力時填寫）：身份證號碼：□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□戶籍所在地：工作單位：聯(lián)系電話：住所地址：郵政編碼：文化程度：□文盲□小學□中學□大專以上身體狀況：□健康□殘疾□嚴重疾病人群類別（可重復交叉）□殘疾人□老年人（60歲以上）□未成年人□婦女□優(yōu)撫對象□農(nóng)村“五”保戶□低保對象□農(nóng)民工□失業(yè)人員□少數(shù)民族□軍人軍屬□盲聾啞□可能被判處死刑的□其他（請注明）――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――申請法律援助事項的類別□刑事案件□請求國家賠償□請求給予最低生活保障待遇或社會保險待遇□請求發(fā)給撫恤金、救濟金□請求給付贍養(yǎng)費、撫養(yǎng)費、扶養(yǎng)費□請求支付勞動報酬□主張因見義勇為行為產(chǎn)生的民事權益□其他（省、自治區(qū)、直轄市人民政府補充規(guī)定的法律援助事項，請注明）申請人在申請事項中的法律地位民事訴訟：□原告（上訴人）□被告（被上訴人）□第三人行政訴訟:□原告（上訴人）□被告（被上訴人）□第三人勞動仲裁：□申請人□被申請人非訴訟：□申請人□被申請人刑事:□犯罪嫌疑人□被害人□被害人的法定代理人或其近親屬□自訴人□自訴人的法定代理人□被告人申請事項法律狀態(tài)□尚未進入法律程序□偵查□起訴□訴訟（□一審□二審□審判監(jiān)督程序）□申訴□仲裁□調(diào)解□行政處理□行政復議申請法律援助援助方式□刑事辯護□刑事被害人代理□刑事附帶民事訴訟□自訴代理□民事訴訟代理□行政訴訟代理□非訴訟代理（□勞動仲裁代理□其他）申請人及家庭經(jīng)濟狀況□職業(yè)收入（含離退休金）每月元□救濟金每月元□其他收入每月元□無收入□申請人家庭人口：人□家庭月平均收入元□家庭月基本開支元申請人家庭現(xiàn)有價值千元以上財產(chǎn)狀況：總價值（元）申請人家庭自有房產(chǎn)建筑面積：平方米使用狀況：□自用□出租申請法律援助的案情及理由概述：以上所填情況均為屬實。申請人（法定代理人）簽字：年月日

法律援助審批表

援審字[

]第

號申請人：申請事項：

受理申請時間：

年

月

日申請人及其家庭經(jīng)濟狀況：□職業(yè)收入（含離退休金）每月

元□救濟金金每月

元□其他收入每月

元□無收入□申請人家庭人：

人□家庭月平均收入

元□家庭月基本開支

元

是否符合法律援助經(jīng)濟困難標準:

□是

□否

經(jīng)濟困難證明:

□有□無

案件來源：□當事人申請□人民法院指定□公安機關轉(zhuǎn)交

□檢察機關轉(zhuǎn)交

□社會組織轉(zhuǎn)交

□律師事務所轉(zhuǎn)交□其他來源(注明)法律援助事項類別:□刑事案件□請求國家賠償□請求給予最低生活保障待遇或社會保險待遇□請求發(fā)給撫恤金、救濟金

□請求給付贍養(yǎng)費、撫養(yǎng)費、扶養(yǎng)費□請求支付勞動報酬□主張因見義勇為行為產(chǎn)生的民事權益□其他（省、自治區(qū)、直轄市人民政府補充規(guī)定的法律援助事項，請注明）受援人分類:□殘疾人

□老年人（60歲以上）□未成年人

□婦女

□優(yōu)撫對象

□農(nóng)村＂五＂保戶□低保對象□農(nóng)民工□失業(yè)人員□少數(shù)民族□軍人家屬□盲聾啞□可能被判處死刑的□其它（請注明）提供法律援助方式:□刑事辯護

□刑事被害人代理

□刑事附帶民事訴訟

□自訴代理

□民事訴訟代理□行政訴訟代理

□非訴訟代理（□勞動仲裁代理□其他）案情概要:審查意見；

簽名及日期:主任審批意見：

簽名及日期:備注：除法援編號，主任審批意見外，所在內(nèi)容均需填寫或打√。

給予法律援助決定書()援決字[]笫號申請人：事由：批準人：領函人（簽字）：時間：給予法律援助決定書援決字[]笫號：你于年月日向本中心(處)提出的法律援助申請，經(jīng)審查，符合法律援助條件，決定給予法律援助，提供法律援助方式為。法律援助中心(處)（公章）年月日備注：此決定書由區(qū)法律援助中心填寫。

指派通知書援指字[]第號發(fā)往單位：事由：受援人：批準人：領函人簽收：時間：指派通知書()援指字[]第號：根據(jù)法律援助的有關規(guī)定，本中心(處)決定對一案提供法律援助。現(xiàn)指派你單位承辦該案。請你們根據(jù)案件的具體情況和需要，并在收到通知之日起3日內(nèi)，安排律師或合適的人員承辦該案并與受援人辦理有關委托手續(xù)，并將指派情況告知本法律援助中心處。特此通知。法律援助中心(處)（公章）

年月日

法律援助機構地址：聯(lián)系人及聯(lián)系方式：備注：此通知書由區(qū)法律援助中心填寫。

授權委托書委托人因（案由）一案向雨湖區(qū)法律援助中心申請法律援助，已獲批準?，F(xiàn)委托該法律援助中心指派的（法援工作站）（承辦人），為委托人案擔任辯護人（或代理人）。本委托書有效期自出具之日起至本案本審終結(jié)止。委托權限如下：委托人：年月日備注：此委托書由鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站工作人員指導申請人填寫。委托權限為一般代理。

法律援助案件結(jié)案報告表援結(jié)字[]第號填表時間：年月日承辦單位承辦人承辦人分類□法律援助機構工作人員□社會律師□基層法律服務工作者□社會組織人員□法律援助志愿者□其他（請注明）案由受援人審理機關(案號)審級（訴訟案件）指派日期開庭日期判決(裁決)日期援助形式□刑事辯護□刑事被害人代理□自訴代理□民事訴訟代理（包括刑事附帶民事訴訟）□行政訴訟代理□勞動仲裁代理□非訴訟代理案情及承辦情況報告（可另外加頁附上）承辦結(jié)果民事（行政/非訴訟/仲裁）：□判決/裁決結(jié)案（□勝訴□敗訴□部分勝訴）□調(diào)解或和解□撤訴刑事：□全部采納□部分采納□未采納其他：當事人滿意程度□滿意□較滿意□一般□不滿意備注備注：除法援編號，審理機關，審級，開庭日期，判決日期外，所在內(nèi)容均需填寫或打√法律援助案件報表姓名出生年月性別民族職業(yè)婚姻狀況身份類別工作單位文化程度住址聯(lián)系電話身份證號健康狀況申請時間案由申請理由審批時間結(jié)案時間案情簡述辦理情況承辦單位承辦人結(jié)案時間備注備注：1、該表登記的是當月已辦理完的非訴訟法律援助調(diào)解案件，各鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站應該在每個月例會前將本表報到司法局郵箱，并在一周內(nèi)及時整理好非訴訟法律援助案卷報司法局存檔。2、該表所有內(nèi)容均需要填寫。鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街道法律援助案件登記臺帳序號申請人性別年齡地址申請理由案由申請時間承辦人辦理結(jié)果備注注：1、各鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法律援助工作站應該將本工作站辦理的非訴訟法律援助案件按照時間順序填入該表，并整理成冊放置在鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街備查。2、所在內(nèi)容均需填寫，不得不填，亂填。村(社區(qū))法律援助咨詢登記本序號咨詢?nèi)诵詣e年齡住址咨詢事由咨詢時間答復人處理結(jié)果備注注：各鄉(xiāng)、鎮(zhèn)、街法援工作站的社區(qū)和村均應該及時將本社區(qū)居民或村民的法律援助咨詢情況填入該表，并整理成冊放置在社區(qū)，村備查。精品文檔精心整理精品文檔可編輯精品文檔THEPATHOFTHELAWbyOliverWendellHolmes,Jr.10HarvardLawReview457(1897)Whenwestudylawwearenotstudyingamysterybutawell-knownprofession.Wearestudyingwhatweshallwantinordertoappearbeforejudges,ortoadvisepeopleinsuchawayastokeepthemoutofcourt.Thereasonwhyitisaprofession,whypeoplewillpaylawyerstoargueforthemortoadvisethem,isthatinsocietieslikeoursthecommandofthepublicforceisintrustedtothejudgesincertaincases,andthewholepowerofthestatewillbeputforth,ifnecessary,tocarryouttheirjudgmentsanddecrees.Peoplewanttoknowunderwhatcircumstancesandhowfartheywillruntheriskofcomingagainstwhatissomuchstrongerthanthemselves,andhenceitbecomesabusinesstofindoutwhenthisdangeristobefeared.Theobjectofourstudy,then,isprediction,thepredictionoftheincidenceofthepublicforcethroughtheinstrumentalityofthecourts.Themeansofthestudyareabodyofreports,oftreatises,andofstatutes,inthiscountryandinEngland,extendingbackforsixhundredyears,andnowincreasingannuallybyhundreds.Inthesesibyllineleavesaregatheredthescatteredpropheciesofthepastuponthecasesinwhichtheaxewillfall.Thesearewhatproperlyhavebeencalledtheoraclesofthelaw.Farthemostimportantandprettynearlythewholemeaningofeveryneweffortoflegalthoughtistomakethesepropheciesmoreprecise,andtogeneralizethemintoathoroughlyconnectedsystem.Theprocessisone,fromalawyer'sstatementofacase,eliminatingasitdoesallthedramaticelementswithwhichhisclient'sstoryhasclothedit,andretainingonlythefactsoflegalimport,uptothefinalanalysesandabstractuniversalsoftheoreticjurisprudence.Thereasonwhyalawyerdoesnotmentionthathisclientworeawhitehatwhenhemadeacontract,whileMrs.Quicklywouldbesuretodwelluponitalongwiththeparcelgiltgobletandthesea-coalfire,isthatheforeseesthatthepublicforcewillactinthesamewaywhateverhisclienthaduponhishead.Itistomaketheprophecieseasiertoberememberedandtobeunderstoodthattheteachingsofthedecisionsofthepastareputintogeneralpropositionsandgatheredintotextbooks,orthatstatutesarepassedinageneralform.Theprimaryrightsanddutieswithwhichjurisprudencebusiesitselfagainarenothingbutprophecies.Oneofthemanyevileffectsoftheconfusionbetweenlegalandmoralideas,aboutwhichIshallhavesomethingtosayinamoment,isthattheoryisapttogetthecartbeforethehorse,andconsidertherightorthedutyassomethingexistingapartfromandindependentoftheconsequencesofitsbreach,towhichcertainsanctionsareaddedafterward.But,asIshalltrytoshow,alegaldutysocalledisnothingbutapredictionthatifamandoesoromitscertainthingshewillbemadetosufferinthisorthatwaybyjudgmentofthecourt;andsoofalegalright.Thenumberofourpredictionswhengeneralizedandreducedtoasystemisnotunmanageablylarge.Theypresentthemselvesasafinitebodyofdogmawhichmaybemasteredwithinareasonabletime.Itisagreatmistaketobefrightenedbytheever-increasingnumberofreports.Thereportsofagivenjurisdictioninthecourseofagenerationtakeupprettymuchthewholebodyofthelaw,andrestateitfromthepresentpointofview.Wecouldreconstructthecorpusfromthemifallthatwentbeforewereburned.Theuseoftheearlierreportsismainlyhistorical,auseaboutwhichIshallhavesomethingtosaybeforeIhavefinished.Iwish,ifIcan,tolaydownsomefirstprinciplesforthestudyofthisbodyofdogmaorsystematizedpredictionwhichwecallthelaw,formenwhowanttouseitastheinstrumentoftheirbusinesstoenablethemtoprophesyintheirturn,and,asbearinguponthestudy,Iwishtopointoutanidealwhichasyetourlawhasnotattained.Thefirstthingforabusinesslikeunderstandingofthematteristounderstanditslimits,andthereforeIthinkitdesirableatoncetopointoutanddispelaconfusionbetweenmoralityandlaw,whichsometimesrisestotheheightofconscioustheory,andmoreoftenandindeedconstantlyismakingtroubleindetailwithoutreachingthepointofconsciousness.Youcanseeveryplainlythatabadmanhasasmuchreasonasagoodoneforwishingtoavoidanencounterwiththepublicforce,andthereforeyoucanseethepracticalimportanceofthedistinctionbetweenmoralityandlaw.Amanwhocaresnothingforanethicalrulewhichisbelievedandpractisedbyhisneighborsislikelyneverthelesstocareagooddealtoavoidbeingmadetopaymoney,andwillwanttokeepoutofjailifhecan.ItakeitforgrantedthatnohearerofminewillmisinterpretwhatIhavetosayasthelanguageofcynicism.Thelawisthewitnessandexternaldepositofourmorallife.Itshistoryisthehistoryofthemoraldevelopmentoftherace.Thepracticeofit,inspiteofpopularjests,tendstomakegoodcitizensandgoodmen.WhenIemphasizethedifferencebetweenlawandmoralsIdosowithreferencetoasingleend,thatoflearningandunderstandingthelaw.Forthatpurposeyoumustdefinitelymasteritsspecificmarks,anditisforthatthatIaskyouforthemomenttoimagineyourselvesindifferenttootherandgreaterthings.Idonotsaythatthereisnotawiderpointofviewfromwhichthedistinctionbetweenlawandmoralsbecomesofsecondaryornoimportance,asallmathematicaldistinctionsvanishinpresenceoftheinfinite.ButIdosaythatthatdistinctionisofthefirstimportancefortheobjectwhichweareheretoconsider--arightstudyandmasteryofthelawasabusinesswithwellunderstoodlimits,abodyofdogmaenclosedwithindefinitelines.Ihavejustshownthepracticalreasonforsayingso.Ifyouwanttoknowthelawandnothingelse,youmustlookatitasabadman,whocaresonlyforthematerialconsequenceswhichsuchknowledgeenableshimtopredict,notasagoodone,whofindshisreasonsforconduct,whetherinsidethelaworoutsideofit,inthevaguersanctionsofconscience.Thetheoreticalimportanceofthedistinctionisnoless,ifyouwouldreasononyoursubjectaright.Thelawisfullofphraseologydrawnfrommorals,andbythemereforceoflanguagecontinuallyinvitesustopassfromonedomaintotheotherwithoutperceivingit,aswearesuretodounlesswehavetheboundaryconstantlybeforeourminds.Thelawtalksaboutrights,andduties,andmalice,andintent,andnegligence,andsoforth,andnothingiseasier,or,Imaysay,morecommoninlegalreasoning,thantotakethesewordsintheirmoralsense,atsomestateoftheargument,andsotodropintofallacy.Forinstance,whenwespeakoftherightsofmaninamoralsense,wemeantomarkthelimitsofinterferencewithindividualfreedomwhichwethinkareprescribedbyconscience,orbyourideal,howeverreached.Yetitiscertainthatmanylawshavebeenenforcedinthepast,anditislikelythatsomeareenforcednow,whicharecondemnedbythemostenlightenedopinionofthetime,orwhichatalleventspassthelimitofinterference,asmanyconscienceswoulddrawit.Manifestly,therefore,nothingbutconfusionofthoughtcanresultfromassumingthattherightsofmaninamoralsenseareequallyrightsinthesenseoftheConstitutionandthelaw.Nodoubtsimpleandextremecasescanbeputofimaginablelawswhichthestatute-makingpowerwouldnotdaretoenact,evenintheabsenceofwrittenconstitutionalprohibitions,becausethecommunitywouldriseinrebellionandfight;andthisgivessomeplausibilitytothepropositionthatthelaw,ifnotapartofmorality,islimitedbyit.Butthislimitofpowerisnotcoextensivewithanysystemofmorals.Forthemostpartitfallsfarwithinthelinesofanysuchsystem,andinsomecasesmayextendbeyondthem,forreasonsdrawnfromthehabitsofaparticularpeopleataparticulartime.IonceheardthelateProfessorAgassizsaythataGermanpopulationwouldriseifyouaddedtwocentstothepriceofaglassofbeer.Astatuteinsuchacasewouldbeemptywords,notbecauseitwaswrong,butbecauseitcouldnotbeenforced.Noonewilldenythatwrongstatutescanbeandareenforced,andwewouldnotallagreeastowhichwerethewrongones.TheconfusionwithwhichIamdealingbesetsconfessedlylegalconceptions.Takethefundamentalquestion,Whatconstitutesthelaw?YouwillfindsometextwriterstellingyouthatitissomethingdifferentfromwhatisdecidedbythecourtsofMassachusettsorEngland,thatitisasystemofreason,thatitisadeductionfromprinciplesofethicsoradmittedaxiomsorwhatnot,whichmayormaynotcoincidewiththedecisions.Butifwetaketheviewofourfriendthebadmanweshallfindthathedoesnotcaretwostrawsfortheaxiomsordeductions,butthathedoeswanttoknowwhattheMassachusettsorEnglishcourtsarelikelytodoinfact.Iammuchofthismind.Thepropheciesofwhatthecourtswilldoinfact,andnothingmorepretentious,arewhatImeanbythelaw.Takeagainanotionwhichaspopularlyunderstoodisthewidestconceptionwhichthelawcontains--thenotionoflegalduty,towhichalreadyIhavereferred.Wefillthewordwithallthecontentwhichwedrawfrommorals.Butwhatdoesitmeantoabadman?Mainly,andinthefirstplace,aprophecythatifhedoescertainthingshewillbesubjectedtodisagreeableconsequencesbywayofimprisonmentorcompulsorypaymentofmoney.Butfromhispointofview,whatisthedifferencebetweenbeingfinedandtaxedacertainsumfordoingacertainthing?Thathispointofviewisthetestoflegalprinciplesisprovenbythemanydiscussionswhichhaveariseninthecourtsontheveryquestionwhetheragivenstatutoryliabilityisapenaltyoratax.Ontheanswertothisquestiondependsthedecisionwhetherconductislegallywrongorright,andalsowhetheramanisundercompulsionorfree.Leavingthecriminallawononeside,whatisthedifferencebetweentheliabilityunderthemillactsorstatutesauthorizingatakingbyeminentdomainandtheliabilityforwhatwecallawrongfulconversionofpropertywhererestorationisoutofthequestion.Inbothcasesthepartytakinganotherman'spropertyhastopayitsfairvalueasassessedbyajury,andnomore.Whatsignificanceisthereincallingonetakingrightandanotherwrongfromthepointofviewofthelaw?Itdoesnotmatter,sofarasthegivenconsequence,thecompulsorypayment,isconcerned,whethertheacttowhichitisattachedisdescribedintermsofpraiseorintermsofblame,orwhetherthelawpurportstoprohibititortoallowit.Ifitmattersatall,stillspeakingfromthebadman'spointofview,itmustbebecauseinonecaseandnotintheothersomefurtherdisadvantages,oratleastsomefurtherconsequences,areattachedtotheactbylaw.TheonlyotherdisadvantagesthusattachedtoitwhichIeverhavebeenabletothinkofaretobefoundintwosomewhatinsignificantlegaldoctrines,bothofwhichmightbeabolishedwithoutmuchdisturbance.Oneis,thatacontracttodoaprohibitedactisunlawful,andtheother,that,ifoneoftwoormorejointwrongdoershastopayallthedamages,hecannotrecovercontributionfromhisfellows.AndthatIbelieveisall.Youseehowthevaguecircumferenceofthenotionofdutyshrinksandatthesametimegrowsmoreprecisewhenwewashitwithcynicalacidandexpeleverythingexcepttheobjectofourstudy,theoperationsofthelaw.Nowhereistheconfusionbetweenlegalandmoralideasmoremanifestthaninthelawofcontract.Amongotherthings,hereagaintheso-calledprimaryrightsanddutiesareinvestedwithamysticsignificancebeyondwhatcanbeassignedandexplained.Thedutytokeepacontractatcommonlawmeansapredictionthatyoumustpaydamagesifyoudonotkeepit--andnothingelse.Ifyoucommitatort,youareliabletopayacompensatorysum.Ifyoucommitacontract,youareliabletopayacompensatorysumunlessthepromisedeventcomestopass,andthatisallthedifference.Butsuchamodeoflookingatthematterstinksinthenostrilsofthosewhothinkitadvantageoustogetasmuchethicsintothelawastheycan.ItwasgoodenoughforLordCoke,however,andhere,asinmanyotherscases,Iamcontenttoabidewithhim.InBromagev.Genning,aprohibitionwassoughtintheKings'BenchagainstasuitinthemarchesofWalesforthespecificperformanceofacovenanttograntalease,andCokesaidthatitwouldsubverttheintentionofthecovenantor,sinceheintendsittobeathiselectioneithertolosethedamagesortomakethelease.SergeantHarrafortheplaintiffconfessedthathemovedthematteragainsthisconscience,andaprohibitionwasgranted.Thisgoesfurtherthanweshouldgonow,butitshowswhatIventuretosayhasbeenthecommonlawpointofviewfromthebeginning,althoughMr.Harriman,inhisveryablelittlebookuponContractshasbeenmisled,asIhumblythink,toadifferentconclusion.Ihavespokenonlyofthecommonlaw,becausetherearesomecasesinwhichalogicaljustificationcanbefoundforspeakingofcivilliabilitiesasimposingdutiesinanintelligiblesense.Thesearetherelativelyfewinwhichequitywillgrantaninjunction,andwillenforceitbyputtingthedefendantinprisonorotherwisepunishinghimunlesshecomplieswiththeorderofthecourt.ButIhardlythinkitadvisabletoshapegeneraltheoryfromtheexception,andIthinkitwouldbebettertoceasetroublingourselvesaboutprimaryrightsandsanctionsaltogether,thantodescribeourpropheciesconcerningtheliabilitiescommonlyimposedbythelawinthoseinappropriateterms.Imentioned,asotherexamplesoftheusebythelawofwordsdrawnfrommorals,malice,intent,andnegligence.Itisenoughtotakemaliceasitisusedinthelawofcivilliabilityforwrongswhatwelawyerscallthelawoftorts--toshowthatitmeanssomethingdifferentinlawfromwhatitmeansinmorals,andalsotoshowhowthedifferencehasbeenobscuredbygivingtoprincipleswhichhavelittleornothingtodowitheachotherthesamename.ThreehundredyearsagoaparsonpreachedasermonandtoldastoryoutofFox'sBookofMartyrsofamanwhohadassistedatthetortureofoneofthesaints,andafterwarddied,sufferingcompensatoryinwardtorment.IthappenedthatFoxwaswrong.Themanwasaliveandchancedtohearthesermon,andthereuponhesuedtheparson.ChiefJusticeWrayinstructedthejurythatthedefendantwasnotliable,becausethestorywastoldinnocently,withoutmalice.Hetookmaliceinthemoralsense,asimportingamalevolentmotive.Butnowadaysnoonedoubtsthatamanmaybeliable,withoutanymalevolentmotiveatall,forfalsestatementsmanifestlycalculatedtoinflicttemporaldamage.Instatingthecaseinpleading,westillshouldcallthedefendant'sconductmalicious;but,inmyopinionatleast,thewordmeansnothingaboutmotives,orevenaboutthedefendant'sattitudetowardthefuture,butonlysignifiesthatthetendencyofhisconductunderknowncircumstanceswasveryplainlytocausetheplaintifftemporalharm.Inthelawofcontracttheuseofmoralphraseologyledtoequalconfusion,asIhaveshowninpartalready,butonlyinpart.Moralsdealwiththeactualinternalstateoftheindividual'smind,whatheactuallyintends.FromthetimeoftheRomansdowntonow,thismodeofdealinghasaffectedthelanguageofthelawastocontract,andthelanguageusedhasreacteduponthethought.Wetalkaboutacontractasameetingofthemindsoftheparties,andthenceitisinferredinvariouscasesthatthereisnocontractbecausetheirmindshavenotmet;thatis,becausetheyhaveintendeddifferentthingsorbecauseonepartyhasnotknownoftheassentoftheother.Yetnothingismorecertainthanthatpartiesmaybeboundbyacontracttothingswhichneitherofthemintended,andwhenonedoesnotknowoftheother'sassent.Supposeacontractisexecutedindueformandinwritingtodeliveralecture,mentioningnotime.Oneofthepartiesthinksthatthepromisewillbeconstruedtomeanatonce,withinaweek.Theotherthinksthatitmeanswhenheisready.Thecourtsaysthatitmeanswithinareasonabletime.Thepartiesareboundbythecontractasitisinterpretedbythecourt,yetneitherofthemmeantwhatthecourtdeclaresthattheyhavesaid.Inmyopinionnoonewillunderstandthetruetheoryofcontractorbeableeventodiscusssomefundamentalquestionsintelligentlyuntilhehasunderstoodthatallcontractsareformal,thatthemakingofacontractdependsnotontheagreementoftwomindsinoneintention,butontheagreementoftwosetsofexternalsigns--notontheparties'havingmeantthesamethingbutontheirhavingsaidthesamething.Furthermore,asthesignsmaybeaddressedtoonesenseoranother--tosightortohearing--onthenatureofthesignwilldependthemomentwhenthecontractismade.Ifthesignistangible,forinstance,aletter,thecontractismadewhentheletterofacceptanceisdelivered.Ifitisnecessarythatthemindsofthepartiesmeet,therewillbenocontractuntiltheacceptancecanberead;none,forexample,iftheacceptancebesnatchedfromthehandoftheoffererbyathirdperson.Thisisnotthetimetoworkoutatheoryindetail,ortoanswermanyobviousdoubtsandquestionswhicharesuggestedbythesegeneralviews.Iknowofnonewhicharenoteasytoanswer,butwhatIamtryingtodonowisonlybyaseriesofhintstothrowsomelightonthenarrowpathoflegaldoctrine,andupontwopitfallswhich,asitseemstome,lieperilouslyneartoit.OfthefirstoftheseIhavesaidenough.Ihopethatmyillustrationshaveshownthedanger,bothtospeculationandtopractice,ofconfoundingmoralitywithlaw,andthetrapwhichlegallanguagelaysforusonthatsideofourway.Formyownpart,Ioftendoubtwhetheritwouldnotbeagainifeverywordofmoralsignificancecouldbebanishedfromthelawaltogether,andotherwordsadoptedwhichshouldconveylegalideasuncoloredbyanythingoutsidethelaw.Weshouldlosethefossilrecordsofagooddealofhistoryandthemajestygotfromethicalassociations,butbyriddingourselvesofanunnecessaryconfusionweshouldgainverymuchintheclearnessofourthought.Somuchforthelimitsofthelaw.ThenextthingwhichIwishtoconsideriswhataretheforceswhichdetermineitscontentanditsgrowth.Youmayassume,withHobbesandBenthamandAustin,thatalllawemanatesfromthesovereign,evenwhenthefirsthumanbeingstoenunciateitarethejudges,oryoumaythinkthatlawisthevoiceoftheZeitgeist,orwhatyoulike.Itisallonetomypresentpurpose.Evenifeverydecisionrequiredthesanctionofanemperorwithdespoticpowerandawhimsicalturnofmind,weshouldbeinterestednonetheless,stillwithaviewtoprediction,indiscoveringsomeorder,somerationalexplanation,andsomeprincipleofgrowthfortheruleswhichhelaiddown.