Claims and lots

Posted by Ward on November 27, 2004

In Reply to: For what it's worth posted by DH on November 26, 2004

: : : : : : : : There is in US jurisprudence a 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used to determine if an individual should have forseen the consequences of an action. Is this a US concept, or is it taken from English common law or prior law in the UK?

: : : : : : : it is derived from English 'common law'. there are variations, bu the most famous is "the man on the Clapham omnibus" - a mythical person who peceives the relevent facts and has an opinion.

: : : : : : : the 'reasonable and prudent man' is a variation and the requirement for prudence is probably a reference to the reasonable investor/business person. it sounds like a term from 'due diligence' in the performance of a duty.

: : : : : : : 'reasonableness' is an amazingly big legal topic and you can find people who have devoted their careers to defining it.

: : : : : : : I once had a case due to be heard in the House of Lords on the question of the meaning of the word 'likely'. Before trial, a piece of legislation was passed that made defining the meaning unnecessary, so funding was pulled.

: : : : : : : Shame that.

: : : : : : : Lewis

: : : : : : Lewis: Thanks and a happy holiday season to you and yours. I've spent many happy times in the Stratford and Coventry area around Christmas.

: : : : : Over the past few years in the US, the term has morphed into the "prudent person" rule.

: : : : I heard about a case a few years ago where a woman tried to negate a contract she'd signed, citing a "reasonable woman" standard that differed significantly from the "reasonable man" standard. The jury didn't buy it.

: : : Well that's just ridiculous. We all know that a woman's sense of reason is completely different to that of a man! ---GODDESS

: : Prudence was always feminine - yet the Prudential was male-dominated - explain that!

: :
: : L

: The "prudent" standard applies to mining, in that a claim was not considered legitimate unless the vein was rich enough that a prudent and reasonable miner would pursue it. Many miners hated the Government for this, accusing the Forest Service of torching their headframes and shacks. Posters by the mining community pictured Smokey the Bear as an arsonist

Dale, why did they do this? Was it to insure that people weren't just using a claim as a way to get a lot to live on?