 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / December 2008"Recieve full satisfaction" in legal terms (this isn't spam)
I'm reading a smuggling in colonial British North America. Erving, a shipowner, paid a fine to the customs official, and then turned around and sued that official in a provincial court. He was awarded slightly more than the fine he paid. The case was appealed to Britain. Here is the sentence: However, upon appeal to England… Erving, in order to avoid answering the appeal, acknowledged that he had received full satisfaction. He knew that he would lose his case in England; my question is--by "acknowledging that he had received full satisfaction," did he forfeit his judgment? Or is this legalese for something else? > I'm reading a smuggling in colonial British North America. Erving, a > shipowner, paid a fine to the customs official, and then turned around [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "acknowledging that he had received full satisfaction," did he forfeit > his judgment? Or is this legalese for something else? We need to be informed as to what happened _after_ he refused to answer the appeal--the rest of the story, so to speak. It may be that, pending the outcome of the appeal, the order awarding him that little bit over the fine was not executed (he had not collected), and the case died on the unanswered appeal. So he may have forfeited his judgment. We don't know what the "full satisfaction" means, unless you can tell us more. Otherwise, "full satisfaction" means he gives up all rights to further legal action against the customs house. Nowadays, there are court costs, but I don't know about the British legal system in those days. Did the court pay for his lawyer and the paper processing? That could run into some money, making it prohibitive to pursue the matter further. My book didn't really say what happened after that--it was mentioned only to indicate how sympathetic juries were to accused smugglers. Yes I agree knowing more about that case could easily explain the wording. >I'm reading a smuggling in colonial British North America. Erving, a >shipowner, paid a fine to the customs official, and then turned around [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >"acknowledging that he had received full satisfaction," did he forfeit >his judgment? Or is this legalese for something else? You are reading something set over two centuries ago, so there might be difference between then and now. Now, however, when the court renders a decision involving an award, the award is not paid while an appeal is in process. It is paid when the appeals court upholds the original decision or not paid if the appeals court reverses the decision. Based on this, it appears that Erving forfeited his award when he declined to go forward with the appeal.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.