法律援助讲义资料

精品文档精心整理精品文档可编辑精品文档法律援助讲义资料目录：1、法律援助讲义资料2、法律英语研习资料什么是法律援助在我国，法律援助是指国家设立的法律援助机构组织法律援助人员，为经济困难或特殊案件的当事人提供免费法律服务的一项法律制度。法律援助的形式法律援助主要采取如下形式：一、法律咨询，代拟法律文书，提供法律意见；二、刑事辩护或者刑事代理；三、民事、行政诉讼代理；四、非诉讼法律援助代理。法律援助的范围法律援助的范围包括一、刑事案件；二、依法请求国家赔偿的；三、请求给予社会保险待遇或最低生活保障待遇的；四、请求发给抚恤金、救济金的；五、请求给付赡养费、抚养费、扶养费的；六、请求支付劳动报酬的；七、主张因见义勇为产生的民事权益的；八、追索交通事故、医疗事故、工伤事故或者其他人身伤害事故的医疗费用和赔偿的法律事项；九、残疾人、未成年人、老年人、军人及军属追索赔偿的法律事项；十、其他确需法律援助的法律事项。如何办理非诉讼法律援助根据国务院《法律援助条例》和《湖南省法律援助条例》的规定，乡、镇、街法律援助工作站办理非诉讼法律援助案件，按照以下步骤进行：一、受理申请。要求当事人提供如下材料:1、法律援助申请书：指导公民写明申请非诉讼法律援助的事实和理由。2、身份证明：身份证、户口薄或暂住证及复印件；代理申请的必须提交代理权证明及代理人的身份证及复印件。3、经济困难证明：提交低保证及复印件，或者提交县级以上民政局或户口所在地村，社区出具的经济困难证明。4、与所申请事项相关的证据材料：判决书、裁定书、合同等与申请法律援助事项有关的法律文书；书证、物证、视听资料、鉴定结论（交通事故赔偿的提交交警队交通事故责任认定鉴定材料；工伤事故赔偿的提交劳动局工伤事故认定书；其他人身伤害事故赔偿的提交医疗鉴定书）、勘验笔录、当事人陈述、证人证言或证人名单等相关证据材料等。二、进行审查。申请人提交的证件、证明材料不齐全的，乡、镇、街法律援助工作站可以要求申请人做出必要的补充或者说明，申请人未按要求做出补充或说明的，视为撤销申请。三、填写表格。申请人提交的材料齐全，乡、镇、街法律援助工作站应当指导申请人填写当事人经济状况证明表，法律援助申请表，并填写好法律援助审批表，连同当事人提交的材料一并送交到区法律援助中心进行审批。四、承办案件。案件经审批后，根据区法律援助中心指派，办理呈报的非诉讼法律援助案件。各承办案件的乡、镇、街法律援助工作站与当事人签订授权委托书，并为当事人开展非诉讼调解工作，促使当事人与对方达成调解协议书。五、报送案卷。达成调解协议后，乡、镇、街法律援助工作站应当填写结案报告，并将所有案件材料整理成案卷及时送交到区法律援助中心。非诉讼法律援助工作流程图法律援助申请（申请人提交申请书，困难证明等相关资料）材料初步审查（法援工作站对申请人提交的材料进行初审）指导填写表格（法援工作站指导申请人填写经济状况证明表，申请表等）呈报中心批准（将申请表格及相关材料报区法援中心批准）符合条件给予援助不符合条件，不予法律援助告知申请人向其他有关部门申请办理发出指派通知书告知申请人向其他有关部门申请办理办理委托手续提供法律援助报送法援案卷

非诉讼法律援助案卷填写指南乡、镇、街法律援助工作站承办非诉讼法律援助案件，必须按照卷内目录中材料的顺序整理装订法律援助案卷，不得缺页，少页。填写相关法律援助表格，必须按照规定的格式和要求填写，不得乱填，不填。给予法律援助决定书，指派通知书由区法律援助中心填写。人民调解协议书，调查笔录，调解笔录由乡、镇、街法律援助工作站制作并装入案卷。法律援助申请书由各乡、镇、街法律援助工作站指导申请人书写，并由工作站装入案卷。雨湖区法律援助中心卷宗第卷字第号收案案由结案案由申请人或原告被告收案日期一审(调解)结果结案日期上诉结果保存年限复核结果承办人备注：1、除了案卷卷号，字号，上诉结果，复核结果，保存年限外，其他内容均应该按照规定填写，不得缺填，乱填。2、收案日期系法律援助审批表上的审批时间，结案日期为人民调解协议书上填写的时间。卷内目录序号材料名称页次备注1法律援助申请书2法律援助申请人及其家庭经济状况证明3法律援助申请表4法律援助审批表5给予法律援助决定书6指派通知书7授权委托书8人民调解协议书9调查调解笔录10举证材料11结案报告12其他材料备注：案卷材料应该按照卷内目录的顺序排列，并用铅笔进行编号，在卷内目录中填写相应的页码。法律援助申请人及其家庭经济状况证明申请人姓别年龄工作单位家庭住址申请人及其家庭经济状况如下：□职业收入（含离退休金）每月元□救济金每月元□其他收入每月元□无收入□申请人家庭人口：人□家庭月平均收入元□家庭月基本开支元申请人家庭现有价值千元以上财产状况：总价值元财产项目财产价值（元）其家庭成员及经济状况如下（单位：元/月均）姓名年龄与其关系收入职业工作单位或就读学校申请人家庭月平均收入元，年度总收入元。申请人家庭每月基本经济开支（单位：元/月）基本生活费用合计申请人供养人经济开支备注其中住房（租金、管理费等）姓名年龄关系经济开支日常生活费用教育费用医疗费其他必要开支合计申请人家庭自有房产地址：产权证书编号：建筑面积：m2使用状况：□自用□出租另需说明的事项：特此说明。出证单位（公章）出证单位联系电话：年月日备注：1、家庭成员包括申请人配偶、未成年子女、由其供养的尚在求学的成年子女、与其共同生活并由其供养的其他人员或未成年申请人的父母。2、出证单位是指申请人户籍所在地或经常居住地的村，社区及民政部门。3、所在相关内容均需要填写，没有内容的应该写无或用斜线（/）标明。4、申请人及其家庭经济状况中，收入一项应该在前四项中用划勾的形式标明，并填写具体数额，经济收入包括家庭所有成员的收入，即家庭总收入，不局限于申请人的收入。家庭月平均收入为家庭总收入除以家庭人口，家庭月基本支出为申请人家庭所有成员的月基本支出，包括住房，教育等所有内容。家庭月基本支出应该等于各明细支出的总和。

法律援助申请表援审字[]第号说明：1、申请人填写本申请表前须仔细阅读法律援助机构提供的有关资料。2、申请人应如实填写本人的实际情况。3、除法援编号外，所有内容均需填写，请按照栏目要求使用正楷文字填写，或在适当□内打√。――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――申请人基本情况申请人：性别：出生日期：民族：法定代理人（申请人为无民事行为或限制行为能力时填写）：身份证号码：□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□户籍所在地：工作单位：联系电话：住所地址：邮政编码：文化程度：□文盲□小学□中学□大专以上身体状况：□健康□残疾□严重疾病人群类别（可重复交叉）□残疾人□老年人（60岁以上）□未成年人□妇女□优抚对象□农村“五”保户□低保对象□农民工□失业人员□少数民族□军人军属□盲聋哑□可能被判处死刑的□其他（请注明）――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――申请法律援助事项的类别□刑事案件□请求国家赔偿□请求给予最低生活保障待遇或社会保险待遇□请求发给抚恤金、救济金□请求给付赡养费、抚养费、扶养费□请求支付劳动报酬□主张因见义勇为行为产生的民事权益□其他（省、自治区、直辖市人民政府补充规定的法律援助事项，请注明）申请人在申请事项中的法律地位民事诉讼：□原告（上诉人）□被告（被上诉人）□第三人行政诉讼:□原告（上诉人）□被告（被上诉人）□第三人劳动仲裁：□申请人□被申请人非诉讼：□申请人□被申请人刑事:□犯罪嫌疑人□被害人□被害人的法定代理人或其近亲属□自诉人□自诉人的法定代理人□被告人申请事项法律状态□尚未进入法律程序□侦查□起诉□诉讼（□一审□二审□审判监督程序）□申诉□仲裁□调解□行政处理□行政复议申请法律援助援助方式□刑事辩护□刑事被害人代理□刑事附带民事诉讼□自诉代理□民事诉讼代理□行政诉讼代理□非诉讼代理（□劳动仲裁代理□其他）申请人及家庭经济状况□职业收入（含离退休金）每月元□救济金每月元□其他收入每月元□无收入□申请人家庭人口：人□家庭月平均收入元□家庭月基本开支元申请人家庭现有价值千元以上财产状况：总价值（元）申请人家庭自有房产建筑面积：平方米使用状况：□自用□出租申请法律援助的案情及理由概述：以上所填情况均为属实。申请人（法定代理人）签字：年月日

法律援助审批表

援审字[

]第

号申请人：申请事项：

受理申请时间：

年

月

日申请人及其家庭经济状况：□职业收入（含离退休金）每月

元□救济金金每月

元□其他收入每月

元□无收入□申请人家庭人：

人□家庭月平均收入

元□家庭月基本开支

元

是否符合法律援助经济困难标准:

□是

□否

经济困难证明:

□有□无

案件来源：□当事人申请□人民法院指定□公安机关转交

□检察机关转交

□社会组织转交

□律师事务所转交□其他来源(注明)法律援助事项类别:□刑事案件□请求国家赔偿□请求给予最低生活保障待遇或社会保险待遇□请求发给抚恤金、救济金

□请求给付赡养费、抚养费、扶养费□请求支付劳动报酬□主张因见义勇为行为产生的民事权益□其他（省、自治区、直辖市人民政府补充规定的法律援助事项，请注明）受援人分类:□残疾人

□老年人（60岁以上）□未成年人

□妇女

□优抚对象

□农村＂五＂保户□低保对象□农民工□失业人员□少数民族□军人家属□盲聋哑□可能被判处死刑的□其它（请注明）提供法律援助方式:□刑事辩护

□刑事被害人代理

□刑事附带民事诉讼

□自诉代理

□民事诉讼代理□行政诉讼代理

□非诉讼代理（□劳动仲裁代理□其他）案情概要:审查意见；

签名及日期:主任审批意见：

签名及日期:备注：除法援编号，主任审批意见外，所在内容均需填写或打√。

给予法律援助决定书()援决字[]笫号申请人：事由：批准人：领函人（签字）：时间：给予法律援助决定书援决字[]笫号：你于年月日向本中心(处)提出的法律援助申请，经审查，符合法律援助条件，决定给予法律援助，提供法律援助方式为。法律援助中心(处)（公章）年月日备注：此决定书由区法律援助中心填写。

指派通知书援指字[]第号发往单位：事由：受援人：批准人：领函人签收：时间：指派通知书()援指字[]第号：根据法律援助的有关规定，本中心(处)决定对一案提供法律援助。现指派你单位承办该案。请你们根据案件的具体情况和需要，并在收到通知之日起3日内，安排律师或合适的人员承办该案并与受援人办理有关委托手续，并将指派情况告知本法律援助中心处。特此通知。法律援助中心(处)（公章）

年月日

法律援助机构地址：联系人及联系方式：备注：此通知书由区法律援助中心填写。

授权委托书委托人因（案由）一案向雨湖区法律援助中心申请法律援助，已获批准。现委托该法律援助中心指派的（法援工作站）（承办人），为委托人案担任辩护人（或代理人）。本委托书有效期自出具之日起至本案本审终结止。委托权限如下：委托人：年月日备注：此委托书由乡、镇、街法律援助工作站工作人员指导申请人填写。委托权限为一般代理。

法律援助案件结案报告表援结字[]第号填表时间：年月日承办单位承办人承办人分类□法律援助机构工作人员□社会律师□基层法律服务工作者□社会组织人员□法律援助志愿者□其他（请注明）案由受援人审理机关(案号)审级（诉讼案件）指派日期开庭日期判决(裁决)日期援助形式□刑事辩护□刑事被害人代理□自诉代理□民事诉讼代理（包括刑事附带民事诉讼）□行政诉讼代理□劳动仲裁代理□非诉讼代理案情及承办情况报告（可另外加页附上）承办结果民事（行政/非诉讼/仲裁）：□判决/裁决结案（□胜诉□败诉□部分胜诉）□调解或和解□撤诉刑事：□全部采纳□部分采纳□未采纳其他：当事人满意程度□满意□较满意□一般□不满意备注备注：除法援编号，审理机关，审级，开庭日期，判决日期外，所在内容均需填写或打√法律援助案件报表姓名出生年月性别民族职业婚姻状况身份类别工作单位文化程度住址联系电话身份证号健康状况申请时间案由申请理由审批时间结案时间案情简述办理情况承办单位承办人结案时间备注备注：1、该表登记的是当月已办理完的非诉讼法律援助调解案件，各乡、镇、街法律援助工作站应该在每个月例会前将本表报到司法局邮箱，并在一周内及时整理好非诉讼法律援助案卷报司法局存档。2、该表所有内容均需要填写。乡、镇、街道法律援助案件登记台帐序号申请人性别年龄地址申请理由案由申请时间承办人办理结果备注注：1、各乡、镇、街法律援助工作站应该将本工作站办理的非诉讼法律援助案件按照时间顺序填入该表，并整理成册放置在乡、镇、街备查。2、所在内容均需填写，不得不填，乱填。村(社区)法律援助咨询登记本序号咨询人性别年龄住址咨询事由咨询时间答复人处理结果备注注：各乡、镇、街法援工作站的社区和村均应该及时将本社区居民或村民的法律援助咨询情况填入该表，并整理成册放置在社区，村备查。精品文档精心整理精品文档可编辑精品文档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.