-3

I've since emended the question; 'commonly-available references' don't answer it. Why was it closed and deleted?

This was closed and deleted by members of the community. Maybe different members have a different view on this.

I've also read Proposal for narrowing the scope of the "reference" close vote.


Link to question: Recover against vs Recover from (it's been deleted, so it's visible only to 10k+ users and only 20k+ users can undelete it). This is the current, edited, text:

“Recover against” vs. “recover from”

From page 53 of Frederick Schauer’s Thinking Like a Lawyer:

If Judge Cardozo had said, “We hold that in all cases involving a nonbusiness consumer and a manufacturer of goods, the consumer may recover against the manufacturer for defects in manufacture. . . .”

Could anyone please explain why it is not recover from here? I’m struggling with the preposition in recover against. Since I’m not asking about the definition proper of recover against, ‘commonly-available references’ don't answer this question.

In general, if X wants to recuperate from or be compensated by Y, then wouldn’t X be recovering money or property from Y?

Doesn’t against denote X’s opposition to Y, which contradicts the fact that X wants something from Y?

  • 6
    No, this should not be bothered with: leave it closed, leave it dead. As Mr Shiny says: ”The definition for this "against" is in the OED: d. Law. Indicating the party to whose detriment judgment is given. Given that this question, like so many of your other questions, hinges on specific legal interpretations, I'm voting to close this as General Reference, because anyone trying to understand legalese should at least have a dictionary as good as the OED, or a legal dictionary.” He’s right. – tchrist Jul 26 '14 at 12:37
3

In general, if X wants to recuperate from or be compensated by Y, then wouldn’t X be recovering money or property from Y?

The answer to this questions is yes, as any good dictionary will tell you.

Doesn’t against denote X’s opposition to Y, which contradicts the fact that X wants something from Y?

You make no case for why opposition precludes compensation, and the assertion that it does makes no sense. If X sues Y, they are in opposition. X is suing Y because X wants relief, so X will always want something from Y and they will always be in opposition. I can't think of a civil case where this is not true.

So unless you can clarify what you are asking, this question will remain closed.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .