Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another analysis, similar to some of the arguments made and assuming we are not bound by precedent:

(1)(a) It should be possible for purchaser - P - to sue the thief -T- for intentional interference with P's right to performance under the contract of sale. P owns the prestation of seller's - S's - promise and the economic value of this property is diminished by T's taking from S. T's taking was intentional. T's intentional taking caused S's incapacity to perform, which is the loss to P. Maybe this does not work because T does not know about P's prestation and the taking is therefore not intentional in the requisite way. If so, then,

(b) T is at least negligent. In intentionally taking T acts unreasonably with regard to the rights of others who ought to be within his contemplation when acting. These others include possible purchasers from S.

Note: It should not be an objection to this analysis that P owns only a prestation, not a material object. The economic value of prestations is harmed by removing the capacity to perform them; the economic value of material objects is harmed by destroying them; trade secrets are harmed by telling the world. The economic value of the opera singer's promise to perform at time t1 for X is harmed when she sings at time t1 for Y. If Y causes that harm intentionally (or negligently), Y injures X's property and must pay for the harm caused.

Tell the NY Stock exchange that promises are not property.

(2) If T is still around, as the initial question suggests, and if T still has the object stolen, then P should sue S for breach of contract. P should tell S "deliver" and when S does not deliver, S is in breach. S is not excused from that breach just because he lacks possession of the object. The object, arguably, has not succumbed to any of the risks in the contract of sale.

(3) If T has only proceeds of the object and the object is "lost", then P should be able to sue T in ue only if there is the implied term in the contract of sale that Charles suggests. Of course, if it is there, then P could sue in UE at # 2 as well. If it is there, then S is obliged to assign the claim. There would be no insolvency priority for P, however, since the obligation to assign is contractual in origin.

(4) But there should be an insolvency priority for the indemnity insurer due to the logic of the promise to indemnify. The insurer promises to pay only the loss caused to the insured by the tortfeasor's fault. That loss is equal to (1) the diminution in the insured's patrimony resulting from the tort MINUS (2) the value of the claim against the torfeasor. Giving the insurer the tort claim is just the simplest way to calculate the value of the insurer's promise. The trustee in bankruptcy cannot ask the insurer for more than this.