one page assignment on ITIL with zero plagiarism

manpreetk

3civillitigation2021.pdf

Home >Information Systems homework help > one page assignment on ITIL with zero plagiarism

ISSM 561 Civil Litigation and Investigations

Agenda

Laws of Evidence

Civil Litigation

Torts (civil wrongs)

Common Remedies useful for Computer Security

Investigations

Working with the Police

Laws of Evidence

Why have rules of evidence?

The rules of evidence governs how parties offer and how judges, and juries evaluate the various forms of proof that may be put forward at a trial.

Our legal system is adversarial

One party puts forward evidence to prove a point

The other party can challenge the evidence

It is believed that testing the evidence is most likely to lead to the truth of the matter

Why restrict evidence?

There are a number of arguments in favour of rules of evidence to restrict what may come before a court to the best evidence

Some common arguments are:

To ameliorate pervasive mistrust of juries

To create conditions to receive the most accurate facts in trials

To manage the scope and duration of trials

Why is evidence important? The judge or jury determines the facts based on the evidence before them

The law is applied to those facts

e.g. in these facts the rule is as follows ….

That leads to the outcome or decision

e.g. the rule says what happens in these facts

As a result, what is admitted as evidence before the Court is very important

Recall S. 24(2) Charter or Rights and Freedoms - in cases of Charter breaches - the ability to exclude evidence if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute

Evidence Courts act on evidence

Evidence can be in various forms including

sworn testimony given by live witnesses in the courtroom, or

questioning of the witnesses, or

by sworn statements / affidavit

Courts also look at exhibits in various forms

In each case - the evidence is tested by the adversarial system

Adversarial System The legal system in most common law countries is known as an adversarial system.

In this system, the parties to a dispute:

develop and present their arguments,

gather and submit evidence,

call and question witnesses, and,

within the confines of certain rules, control the process.

The fact finder, usually a judge or jury, remains neutral and passive throughout the proceeding.

The fact finder attempts to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly.

Evidence The Judge (if alone) or jury will assess the evidence

When courts or juries analyze evidence they look at:

1. veracity (truthfulness)

2. reliability

As an investigator, you have to make sure that the evidence is in “admissible form”.

Relevance

A precondition to the admissibility of the evidence is it has to be relevant to the issues in dispute before the Court

It is, however, common at investigative stage that you have to err on side of inclusion as you will not know what will become relevant as matter moves forward

Relevance Courts say

“Relevancy is assessed in the context of the entire case and the positions of counsel.

It requires a determination whether, as a matter of human experience and logic, the existence of a particular fact, directly or indirectly, makes the existence or non-existence of a material fact more probable than it would be otherwise.

If it does, it is relevant and prima facie admissible.”

Relevance

Relevant evidence “means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

United States v. Rivera Calderon, 578 F.3d 78, 94 (1st Cir. P.R. 2009)

Exhibits One form of evidence are exhibits

In a trial, any piece of evidence (i.e. document, diagram, photo, police report, expert report) offered by any party requires a particular foundation procedure to establish that the exhibit is reliable and relevant.

For an exhibit that is so reliable that no further proof is needed to establish its truthful existence, then a live witness will be needed to establish a proper foundation.

This foundation is necessary to assure the court that the piece of evidence is what it purports to be.

Foundation of Exhibits Laying an evidentiary foundation for an exhibit involves proving to the judge that the exhibit you want to introduce is relevant and complies with the rules of evidence.

Do this by questioning a witness, asking them to confirm that they:

Are familiar with the exhibit;

Understand what it is; and

Acknowledge it is genuine.

May need to establish additional elements through the witness' testimony to show that the exhibit complies with the rules of evidence and is reliable and relevant.

Laying an evidentiary foundation is crucial when introducing exhibits at trial.

Without a proper foundation, the court may refuse to admit certain exhibits and you could find that key evidence is inadmissible.

Exhibits You have to show exhibits are in same condition as they were when they were seized

You can do that by proving:

1. continuity, or

2. testifying they we in same condition as when they were seized

Applying these principles how do you deal with things like internet pages that can disappear quickly?

Notes Your notes are not admissible

However, your notes can be used to help refresh your memory

Used to assist with assessment of reliability

For permission to use notes in Court you need to prove:

1. the witness is the author of the notes;

2. the witness has some memory of the incident; and

3. notes were made at the time of the occurrence

Hearsay Evidence Generally speaking , witnesses can testify to what they:

saw,

heard, or

did

Evidence of what they learned from another source cannot be used to prove the truth of what was told to the witness (hearsay rule)

Option is to call that other person to give direct evidence

Why exclude hearsay? Hearsay evidence is thought to be generally untrustworthy.

Some of the reasons that have been given for finding hearsay to be a poor type of evidence are:

The author of the statement is not under oath and is not subject to cross-examination

No opportunity to observe the demeanour of the declarant

Accuracy tends to deteriorate with each repetition of the statement

The admission of such evidence lends itself to the perpetration of fraud

Hearsay evidence results in a decision based upon secondary, weaker evidence rather than the best evidence available

The introduction of such evidence will lengthen the trial 18

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule There are many exceptions but generally gets down to necessity and reliability

Hearsay evidence may be admitted where its admission is (1) necessary to prove a fact in issue and (2) the evidence is reliable.

"The criterion of "reliability" - the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness - is a function of the circumstances under which the statement in question was made.

If a statement sought to be adduced by way of hearsay evidence is made under circumstances which substantially negate the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken, the hearsay evidence may be said to be "reliable", i.e., a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness is established.”

R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915, 94 D.L.R. (4th) 590.

Hearsay Exception - Confessions and Admissions

General principle is if you say something against your penal or pecuniary interest, it must be true

In prosecutions – if a confession or admission made to a person in authority – prosecution has to prove it was made freely and voluntarily.

This means no threats, promises or inducements and the suspect had an operating mind.

A “person in authority” is someone who can influence the prosecution.

Court looks carefully at how the confession and admission was recorded.

Hearsay Exception - Business Records Need to show that a record was:

1. an original entry,

2. made contemporaneously,

3. in the routine of business,

4. by a recorder who had a duty to make the record,

5. who had no motive to misrepresent it

Keep in mind investigative reports are not admissible - s. 30 (10) Canada Evidence Act

Computer Records

Most Provincial Evidence Acts contain same preconditions as set out in the Canada Evidence Act

Authentication of electronic documents

31.1 Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be

S. 31.2 Canada Evidence Act

Application of best evidence rule — electronic documents

31.2 (1) The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic document is satisfied

(a) on proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system by or in which the electronic document was recorded or stored; …

S. 31.2 Canada Evidence Act

Printouts

(2) Despite subsection (1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an electronic document in the form of a printout satisfies the best evidence rule if the printout has been manifestly or consistently acted on, relied on or used as a record of the information recorded or stored in the printout.

S. 31.3 Canada Evidence Act Presumption of integrity

31.3 For the purposes of subsection 31.2(1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of an electronic documents system by or in which an electronic document is recorded or stored is proven

(a) by evidence capable of supporting a finding that at all material times the computer system or other similar device used by the electronic documents system was operating properly or, if it was not, the fact of its not operating properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic document and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the electronic documents system;

S. 31.3 Canada Evidence Act

(b) if it is established that the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party who is adverse in interest to the party seeking to introduce it; or

(c) if it is established that the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party and who did not record or store it under the control of the party seeking to introduce it.

S. 31.4-5 Canada Evidence Act

S. 31.4 deals with electronic signatures.

31.5 For the purpose of determining under any rule of law whether an electronic document is admissible, evidence may be presented in respect of any standard, procedure, usage or practice concerning the manner in which electronic documents are to be recorded or stored, having regard to the type of business, enterprise or endeavour that used, recorded or stored the electronic document and the nature and purpose of the electronic document.

Computer Records - Factors When considering whether a computer-stored information is a business record, the court should have regards to several factors:

Sources of Data and Information: there should be an identifiable source of the record and the source should be reliable

Contemporaneous Recording: the recordings should be made shortly after the events they record

Routine Business Data: the creation should be part of a routine of recording

Data Entry: there should be evidence of the process used to input the information

Industry Standards: where there is a standard, compliance with the standard should be shown

Business Reliance: there should be some demonstrated reliance on the records

System Continuity: there should be some evidence from the records keeper or system manager explaining the integrity of the system, including protections against tampering or errors

Privilege Certain witnesses are not compellable nor can communications between them be revealed in court

Different rules between civil and criminal law

Communications between lawyer and client for the purpose of giving legal advice cannot be admitted without the consent of the client

Spousal privilege (with many exceptions) during course of marriage

Some communications are privileged under civil proceedings (e.g. Dr./patient, in contemplation of settlement, etc.) but not criminal.

Evidence

Questions?

Being a Witness

Being a Good Witness You should be adequately prepared and meet with your lawyer.

You will want to review applicable:

law enforcement reports,

prior statements,

photographs, and

other information about the case.

Be certain to only provide answers to the non-objectionable questions asked.

Answering Questions Listen to the question and only answer the question that is asked.

Brief and concise answers are best.

If you don’t know the answer, “I don’t know” is a perfectly good answer.

Don’t guess.

If you don’t understand a question, ask for the lawyer to rephrase it.

Do not interrupt the question.

Beware of compound questions.

Listen to your lawyer.

They will object if the question is improper.

Answering Questions

If a question pertains to an existing document, you can to ask to review that document.

Explain your answer if required.

Do not use absolute terms like “always or “never”.

You can go back to clarify an earlier answer.

Be calm and cool.

Communications between you and your lawyer are privileged … so are off limits.

Practical Pointers for Witnesses 1. Be prepared

2. Be accurate

Just the facts - no embroidery

3. Be honest

Reputation is important, if you are loose with the truth, then it may take a long time to recover your reputation

4. Keep in mind prior statements can be used to lessen or question your credibility or read in against your position.

Being a Witness

Questions?

Civil Litigation

Civil Litigation Civil law is the body of law having to do with the private rights of individuals.

Civil law are the rules between individuals, not the government.

Civil law provides a remedy for individuals who need to enforce private rights against other individuals.

If individuals need to resolve a civil dispute, this is called civil litigation.

When civil litigation involves an injury, the injury action is called a tort.

Parties in civil litigation In civil litigation, an injured party sues to receive a court-ordered remedy, such as money, property, or some sort of performance.

Anyone who is injured—an individual, corporation, or other business entity—can sue civilly.

In civil litigation the injured party that is suing is called the plaintiff.

A plaintiff must hire and pay for a lawyer or represent himself or herself.

Hiring a lawyer is one of the many costs of litigation and should be carefully contemplated before starting a lawsuit.

The alleged wrongdoer and the person or entity being sued is called the defendant.

The defendant can be any person or thing that has caused harm, including an individual, corporation, or other business entity.

A defendant in a civil litigation matter must hire and pay for a lawyer even if the defendant did nothing wrong.

Goal of civil litigation The goal of civil litigation is to compensate the plaintiff for any injuries and to put the plaintiff back in the position that they held before the injury occurred.

The goal is to make the plaintiff whole, not to punish, so fault is not an issue.

If the defendant has the resources to pay, the law requires the defendant to pay so that society does not bear the cost of the plaintiff’s injury.

Liability without fault A defendant may be liable without fault in two situations.

1. The law that the defendant violated may not require fault. This is referred to as strict liability. Strict liability torts do not require fault because they do not include an intent component.

2. Another case where the defendant may be liable without fault is if the defendant did not actually commit any act but is associated with the acting defendant through a special relationship.

The policy of holding a separate entity or individual liable for the defendant’s action is called vicarious liability.

An example of vicarious liability is employer-employee liability. If an employee injures a plaintiff while on the job, the employer may be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, whether or not the employer is at fault.

Harm

The goal of civil litigation is to compensate the plaintiff for injuries done.

As a result, the plaintiff must be a genuine victim that can prove harm.

If there is no evidence of harm, the plaintiff has no basis for the civil litigation matter.

There must be a live dispute

Courts can only hear cases involving actual disputes between the parties.

If a dispute has ceased to be operative or to apply, its subject matter is generally considered moot and a court will not proceed to hear it.

The King Ex Rel. Tolfree v. Clark, [1944] S.C.R. 69

Burden of Proof in civil cases

The burden of proof in a civil case is to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost.

That standard of proof is a balance of probabilities

Means "more probable than not", or more technically, the chance of the proposition being true is more than 50%

This is lower that the criminal standard of proof

Civil Remedies

Two main types

1. Breach of Contract

Address in Contracts lecture

2. Torts

Limitation Periods

If legal action not commenced (filed in court) in a certain time period, then plaintiff may be barred from bringing it

Policy - seek to avoid stale evidence, faulty memories

Limitation periods are in Limitations Act and other statutes

Is a complicated area and need to get legal advice as soon as possible

Torts

Tort - defined

A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, which the law will redress by an award of damages

In other words, it gives the plaintiff the right to sue

We will see other remedies in addition to damages are available

Two Types of Torts

Intentional

Negligence

Intentional Torts 1. Battery – a person who intentionally causes a harmful or offensive contact with another person is liable for battery

e.g. a punch in the face or yanking on your jacket

2. Assault – creating an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Plaintiff must show

1.The act was intended to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact; and

2. The act did cause apprehension in the victim that harmful or offensive contact would occur.

Intentional Torts 3. False Imprisonment – total confinement without arrest power or lawful justification

Must show two essential elements:

1. Detention or restraint against a person’s will, and

2. Unlawfulness of the detention or restraint.

Note the importance of lawful power to arrest

Intentional Torts 4. Malicious prosecution – to prosecute a person without a subjective belief in the guilt of the accused and an objective basis for that belief, or

to prosecute for an improper motive

5. Intentional infliction of mental suffering

Must show:

The Defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous;

The Defendant’s conduct was calculated to harm the Plaintiff; and

The Defendant’s conduct caused the Plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness.

Defenses to Intentional Torts 1. Consent for assault and battery

2. Self-defence – needs to be proportional to threat

3. Defence of others – need to have a reasonable belief that the person is in need of protection

4. Necessity – protects good samaritans

5. Defence of property- can use reasonable, non lethal force to protect property

6. Legal authority – can use force if authorized by law. E.g – arrest powers, surgery to preserve life

Intention - defined Conduct is intentional if the person intends to produce the consequences that follow his actions

It is enough that it is substantially certain that the result will follow. The consequence does not have to be intended.

You take your victim as you find him

Intention is inferred from the act itself.

Do not need to prove motive. Motive is why something was done – all you need to show is the intention to do the act complained of.

Mistake (I meant to hit someone else) is not a defence nor is mental illness

Additional Intentional Torts Causing economic loss by unlawful means

A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12

What is the scope of liability for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means?

In light of the history and rationale of the tort and taking into account where it fits in the broader scheme of modern tort liability, the tort should be kept within narrow bounds.

It will be available in three‑party situations in which the defendant commits an unlawful act against a third party and that act intentionally causes economic harm to the plaintiff.

Additional Intentional Torts

What sorts of conduct are considered “unlawful” for the purposes of this tort?

Conduct is unlawful if it would be actionable by the third party or would have been actionable if the third party had suffered loss as a result of it.

Additional Intentional Torts

Tort of intimidation

Roman Corp. v. Hudson’s Bay Oil & Gas Co., [1973] S.C.R. 820

In order to succeed on the claim in tort for intimidation, the plaintiff would have to prove that

- they had sustained damage by reason of a threat,

- made by the defendant,

- of an unlawful act.

Negligence

No intent is involved in negligence.

To be successful in a tort action based on negligence the plaintiff has to show that:

(a) a duty of care exists,

(b) breach of that duty, and

When does a duty of care arise? Hill v. Hamilton - Wentworth Regional Police Services Board 2007 SCC 41 at para. 20:

The test for determining whether a person owes a duty of care involves two questions:

(1) Does the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant disclose sufficient foreseeability and proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care; and

(2) If so, are there any residual policy considerations which ought to negate or limit that duty of care?”

Duty can be created and removed by legislation 60

Breach of the Duty of Care

Use reasonable man test

Reasonable man is a mythical creature of the law whose conduct is the standard by which the Courts measure the conduct of all other persons and find it to be proper or improper in the particular circumstances as they may exist from time to time.

The reasonable man …

He is not an extraordinary or unusual creature;

He is not superhuman;

He is not required to display the highest skill of which anyone is capable;

He is not a genius who can perform uncommon feats, nor is he possessed with unusual powers of foresight.

He does not do and does not omit to do anything a prudent man would do.

The reasonable man …

His conduct is guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs.

His conduct is the standard “adopted in the community by persons of ordinary intelligence and prudence”

Professionals Professionals are held to a higher standard of care as they are paid for their services

Standard is that of the reasonable professional in that field

To establish standard –

look at training,

Code of Ethics,

legislation,

expert evidence of standard practice in the area

Failure to consult by a professional when necessary can be a breach of the duty

Courts do not “second guess” judgement calls

Standard is standard practice at the time of the event, not the trial 64

Causation Plaintiff has to show the defendant caused the damages

Court uses the “but / for” test

Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428

The plaintiff family of victim who had gone to the defendant's hospital but was negligently sent home untreated and died of arsenic poisoning a few hours later.

The medical evidence suggested that the victim would probably have died, even if the proper treatment had been given promptly.

Did the defendant's negligence cause the victim's death?

Causation Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428

Held: The defendant 's negligence did not cause the victim's death, the arsenic was the cause.

Decision established the “but for” test:

But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the harm to the claimant have occurred?

If yes, as in this case, the defendant is not factually liable.

If the answer is no, then factual causation is satisfied.

Other Useful Torts

Conversion

Conversion is a common law tort.

The elements of a conversion cause of action are:

1. the plaintiff has clear legal ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion;

2. the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff's property rights;

3. there are damages resulting from the conversion.

Passing Off Three necessary elements in a passing off action:

1. The existence of goodwill,

2. Deception of the public due to a misrepresentation, and

3. Actual or potential harm to the plaintiff

Tort protects business names and unregistered trademarks

Tort of passing off was developed by courts to protect a plaintiff from harm to their business caused by unfair competition through deceptive marketing or representation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_competition

Defamation Covers libel and slander

In Alberta, have the Defamation Act

Plaintiff has to prove the defendant:

1. made a false statement about the plaintiff

2. that it was published

3. lessened the plaintiff’s reputation in the community

Publish means to communicate to a 3rd party

Does not necessarily mean publish in the media

Defences to Defamation

Truth

Fair comment

Responsible communication … which requires the defendant to show:

1. the communication was in the public interest

2. the publication was responsible and the defendant was diligent in trying to verify the allegations having regard to all of the circumstances

Defamation Damages

Amount determined by:

How outrageous the falsehood was

How broadly it was published

How badly the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged

Torts

Questions?

Remedies

Damages

Replevin

Special injunctive relief useful in computer security

Damages 1.Compensatory – compensates for the loss. Two subsets:

(a) General - damages to mark the wrong done

– limit of 100,000 1978 dollars for general pain and suffering. Can include mental distress.

(b) Special – actual quantifiable loss

2. Aggravated – when defendant has acted with high handed or oppressive conduct that increased the plaintiff’s humiliation and anxiety

3 Punitive or exemplary damages which is in effect a civil fine to deter the plaintiff’s conduct

Damages Fidler v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada 2006 SCC 30

While compensatory damages are awarded primarily for the purpose of compensating a plaintiff for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered as a result of a defendant’s conduct, punitive damages are designed to address the purposes of retribution, deterrence and denunciation…

“punitive damages straddle the frontier between civil law (compensation) and criminal law (punishment)”. Criminal law and quasi-criminal regulatory schemes are recognized as the primary vehicles for punishment. It is important that punitive damages be resorted to only in exceptional cases, and with restraint.

Fidler v. Sun Life Court clarifies the use of the term “aggravated damages” in the context of damages for mental distress arising from breach of contract.

“Aggravated damages”, describe an award that aims at compensation, but takes full account of the intangible injuries, such as distress and humiliation, that may have been caused by the defendant’s insulting behaviour.

Replevin

Getting something important back

Replevin applies to an application in an action

(a) for the recovery of personal property in which the applicant claims that the property was unlawfully taken or is unlawfully detained, and

(b) in which the applicant seeks to repossess the personal property in issue immediately, pending determination of the action described in (a).

Replevin Rules 6.48 to 6.53 of the Alberta Rules of Court

6.49(1) A party may apply to the Court for a replevin order without serving notice of the application on any other party unless the Court otherwise orders.

(2) The application for a replevin order must include in the application an undertaking

(a) to conclude the action for recovery of the personal property without delay,

(b) to return the personal property to the respondent if ordered to do so, and

(c) to pay damages, costs and expenses sustained by the respondent as a result of the replevin order if the applicant is not successful in the action for recovery of the personal property and the Court so orders.

Replevin

(3) The application for a replevin order must be supported by an affidavit that

(a) sets out the facts respecting the wrongful taking or detention of the personal property,

(b) contains a clear and specific description of the personal property and its value, and

Order should be granted if there are substantial grounds for the claim

Specialized Remedies

Injunction An injunction is a court order prohibiting a party from engaging in certain conduct

Party seeking an injunction has to show:

1. there is a serious issue to be tried

2. the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted

3. the balance of convenience between the parties favours granting the injunction

Enforce by contempt of court / imprisonment

Important in cyber security cases 83

Mareva Injunction (Freezing Order) This order is obtained ex parte.

Usually involves one big asset that cannot be compensated for by a damage award

There has to be strong prima facie case the asset belongs to the plaintiff, and that the asset will be removed or disappear

A party seeking a Mareva injunction must establish a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of dissipation

Chitel v Rothbart, [1982] O.J. No. 3540 (CA)

Easier to do in an ransom case

AA v Persons Unknown, [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)

Mareva Injunction (Freezing Order)

The plaintiff often has to give an undertaking in damages should it turn out the injunction should not have been granted

The Mareva injunction effectively freezes the assets

Important in cyber security cases for recovery and loss mitigation

Since the order is given ex parte a duty of candour exists

Anton Pillar Order This order is effectively a civil search warrant

Party seeking order has to show:

1. The plaintiff has a strong prima facie case

2. Potential for very serious harm to the plaintiff exists

3. Clear evidence the respondent will destroy evidence in his possession

4. Have to itemize what the evidence is and why it is believed to be in that location

5. Given an undertaking in case order should not have been granted

Normally have a police officer or independent lawyer supervise the search

Since often given ex parte a duty of candour exists

Norwich Pharmacal Order

Used to ensure evidence in the hands of third parties (banks or ISPs) will be preserved and turned over to the plaintiff to use in litigation

Have to show party likely will not follow obligation to produce the evidence or try to thwart the litigation

Important in cyber security cases

Obtain identity of criminal / anonymous online person

Other Remedies

Specific performance – require the transfer of a special or unique item that an award damages will not adequately compensate for

Tracing action – show where the money or item went

Costs

Interest - both pre and post judgement

Merger Pleading two different causes of action in one Statement of Claim, based on the same facts which resulted in the same injuries and consequential damages, has never entitled a party to two distinct judgments.

Both causes of action merge into one judgment and one set of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.

The judgment operates as a comprehensive declaration of the rights of all the parties with respect to the matters in issue.

Once judgment is obtained, every cause of action upon which it is based merges into the judgment and disappears as do all claims for remedy.

Remedies

Questions?