It is a familiar ideal that the remedy should fit the wrong—this wrong, by this wrongdoer, against this victim. Modern legal systems ordinarily pursue this kind of fit, at least in civil cases, by tailoring the remedy case by case. There is an alternative, though, which is for a legal system to announce in advance exactly what the remedy will be for all violations of a legal rule.
This Article analyzes that alternative and offers a theory for when remedies should be announced.
Announcing has important social benefits. First, announcing leads to greater equality because what a successful litigant recovers is not affected by her race, gender, or other characteristics. Second, announcing produces greater compliance with legal rules because it assures the public that remedies are not being unfairly manipulated. Third, announcing reduces the “costs of telling.” When remedies are decided case by case, a plaintiff’s recovery depends on how successfully she tells her story. This telling has personal costs that are avoided when remedies are announced.
In achieving these benefits, announcing does not operate as a unitary phenomenon. Sometimes it performs a cost-saving function, sometimes a communication function, and sometimes a precommitment function. Distinguishing among these functions is critical to the proper use of announcing. Other important considerations include the interplay of rights and remedies, the need for future proofing, and the way announcing one remedy can affect the entire system of remedies.
To read the complete Article, click “VIEW PDF” below.