Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Subtleties of Legal Language. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page research paper that discusses the implications of a case. According to the majority opinion, the value of the injury suffered due to malpractice is defined as the value that can be associated with the claim as a whole, but the dissenting opinion holds that the plaintiff should be entitled to the loss that was actually sustained due to malpractice. Looking at these two statements from the viewpoint of the average reader, they seem virtually identical, but the subtle difference in wording carry tremendous import from a legal standpoint. This examination of this case demonstrates why this is so. Bibliography lists 6 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khlelang.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
& Roe to pursue of claim for personal injuries. In so doing, Campagnola entered into a retainer agreement that stipulated that the law firm would receive one-third of all money
awarded. It was agreed that this fee would be based on net recovery, deducting the firms expenses (Kathleen Campagnola, et al, 1990). In this case, the wording of the majority
opinion and that of the dissenting opinion are quite similar. According to the majority opinion, the value of the injury suffered due to malpractice is defined as the value
that can be associated with the claim as a whole, but the dissenting opinion holds that the plaintiff should be entitled to the loss that was actually sustained due to
malpractice. Looking at these two statements from the viewpoint of the average reader, they seem virtually identical, but the subtle difference in wording carry tremendous import from a legal standpoint.
The following examination of this case demonstrates why this is so. The subtle difference in language between the two statements equated with the plaintiff receiving $100,000 rather than
$67,000. This was because the majority opinion ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to the full value of what had been lost, while the dissenting opinion took the position that
Campagnola was entitled to the value that she would have received had the malpractice not occurred. As this suggests, the differences in language, while minor, are also highly significant and
refer to the details of the case. While the majority opinion acknowledges the legitimacy of the defendants claims, the majority of judges felt that to "apply the traditional rules of
contract damages" would set a dangerous precedent because this would "permit a negligent attorney to obtain credit for an unearned fee" (Kathleen Campagnola, et al, 1990). The court was
...