Legal Studies 101

A. In this case, X’s decision to file his complaint as a suit at law or a bill in equity would ultimately depend on the type of remedy he is looking to receive. In a suit at law, or civil action, the most common remedy a court awards is monetary damages. Equity courts, however, grant injunctions, or decrees directing someone either to act or to prohibit from acting. When referring to complaints of past unauthorized use, X would be suing to for a monetary remedy at or around the amount of 2,400 dollars. Possible future unapproved use of X’s internet by Y could be discontinued by a prohibitory injunction, but he would not necessarily be compensated for the past use. Also, in general, X would not be able to obtain equitable relief unless monetary damages were deemed an insufficient remedy for the complaint. Thus, it makes better sense for X to style his complaint as a suit at law in the attempt to receive monetary compensation for the unauthorized use of his internet service.

B. Usually, common law systems use the stare decisis principle, stating that cases should be decided according to precedents and principled rules. In this situation, however, the current case of unauthorized internet use is unique and there are no previous applicable cases, so the judges have the duty to make a law and create a precedent for future cases. When making a precedent in the absence of codes, it is suggested to look to customs to aid in decisions. When defined through our society’s customs, unauthorized use of internet service would be deemed wrongful behavior. The court would primarily use the idea of conversion of personal property after deciding that X’s internet was in fact his personal property. For example, in Popov v. Hayashi, the court was clear that Popov had intended at all times to establish and maintain possession of the ball, but was not clear if he actually achieved possession. On the contrary, in X’s case, he clearly had both intent and possession of the...