A wrongdoer cannot be rewarded with the fruit of their tort

Evidence

In our motion for direct appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the attorneys argued that it was a basic tenet of common law that the “wrongdoer” is never rewarded with the fruit of their tort; that another basic precept of common law is the protection of one from the wrongful acts of another. And finally, that Harvard was a tortfeasor, responsible for irreparable harm. — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1248

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• DEFINE: Lays out Lanier’s three-pronged legal argument against Harvard: no wrongdoer reward, protection from wrongful acts, and tortfeasor status.

Related

• Lanier’s appellate brief argued Harvard was a tortfeasor profiting from its own wrong (similarity 0.95)