Remedial doctrine is historically made by tribunals, not by custom or general understanding

Evidence

Note that there may be thought to be a justification for this in the development of the general, unwritten law. In dealing with questions of basic, primary obligation - that is, with normal activity not involving controversy - the courts have on the whole sought to stick close to established custom and general understanding. But people do not usually develop customs or understandings about what happens when basic obligations are violated. Historically, for the most part, remedial doctrines have been molded by the tribunals that settle the exceptional cases of controversy from time to time arising, or else by the legislature. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1664

Categorization

• XREF: Relates to the book_so_far thread on statutory ‘skeletons’ fleshed out by agencies, and to why remedial law develops differently from primary obligations. — connects to: Courts, not legislatures, are responsible for molding remedial law when statutes fall silent. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1368; Historical laws are constituted regularities, not metaphysical or causal determinants — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1464
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Historical laws are constituted regularities, not metaphysical or causal determinants #contradicts (0.85) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1464