final draft by jingchao
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Diana Gong
Jun 3, 2013, 10:05:20 PM6/3/13
to mootcl...@googlegroups.com
Hi everyone,
I'm sorry for the delay--trying to add some footnotes and making sure the reference is fine. See you this afternoon!
Bests,
jingchao
--
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.——Samuel Beckett
龚竞超 Diana Gong
北京大学法学院 Peking University Law School, Beijing, China
Joe Pratt
Jun 4, 2013, 6:31:55 AM6/4/13
to mootclass2013
Dear everyone,
Further to our discussions today, I wanted to add that Miranda I most certainly would have been able to pick up any messages Iris sent to PSDA because they would have been on the same frequency communicating from space to PSDA. As discussed, these frequencies are open, and as both Iris and Miranda I were "launched" into space by Prospero and necessarily in communication from space with PSDA, they would have been on the same channel.
As such, the Miranda I and Flight 281 accidents are related and should be one issue. Prospero is at fault for the accidents because Iris suddenly discarded two engines, and Caliban is at fault because it prevented Miranda I from learning about the discarded engines and sharing that information with others.
Each side of course must argue the specifics. Prospero must argue that Caliban is guilty of negligence or an act intended to harm and that its own fault was limited or nonexistent. Caliban, on the other hand, must argue that Prospero is at fault and that its actions did not constitute negligence or an act intended to harm. Each side must have strong case law defining terms like negligence to support its position.
This entire competition we've haggled over whether these two accidents were related. As a common law lawyer, the first time I read the Compromis, I thought they were one issue. Why? Because the facts gave each side something to argue. In these competitions, you will always be asked to argue grey areas--there are no easy answers. Look for specific points that both sides can dispute.
We may not do much more with this Space Law competition, but I hope you will see how such thinking works. It will help you spot the issues and focus on what you must argue in the future. We always face great time pressure and the quicker we can zero in on the relevant issues, the better off we will be.
I hope the above is helpful.
Regards, Professor Joe
Further to our discussions today, I wanted to add that Miranda I most certainly would have been able to pick up any messages Iris sent to PSDA because they would have been on the same frequency communicating from space to PSDA. As discussed, these frequencies are open, and as both Iris and Miranda I were "launched" into space by Prospero and necessarily in communication from space with PSDA, they would have been on the same channel.
As such, the Miranda I and Flight 281 accidents are related and should be one issue. Prospero is at fault for the accidents because Iris suddenly discarded two engines, and Caliban is at fault because it prevented Miranda I from learning about the discarded engines and sharing that information with others.
Each side of course must argue the specifics. Prospero must argue that Caliban is guilty of negligence or an act intended to harm and that its own fault was limited or nonexistent. Caliban, on the other hand, must argue that Prospero is at fault and that its actions did not constitute negligence or an act intended to harm. Each side must have strong case law defining terms like negligence to support its position.
This entire competition we've haggled over whether these two accidents were related. As a common law lawyer, the first time I read the Compromis, I thought they were one issue. Why? Because the facts gave each side something to argue. In these competitions, you will always be asked to argue grey areas--there are no easy answers. Look for specific points that both sides can dispute.
We may not do much more with this Space Law competition, but I hope you will see how such thinking works. It will help you spot the issues and focus on what you must argue in the future. We always face great time pressure and the quicker we can zero in on the relevant issues, the better off we will be.
I hope the above is helpful.
Regards, Professor Joe
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages