Reference no: EM133803478

Question

1. Plaintiff Corporation invests $1 million in exploring for oil on its property. After it discovers oil and begins to extract it for sale, its neighboring landowner, Defendant Corporation, begins to do likewise. Because the oil is part of a common pool underlying the neighboring pieces of property, the defendant is able to extract oil from the same pool discovered by the plaintiff. Defendant's costs are much less than plaintiff's because it does not have to undergo the expense of searching for the oil. This gives the defendant a competitive advantage. Plaintiff sues defendant, asking for an injunction ordering defendant to stop exploiting oil discovered by plaintiff's investment and labor. Defendant claims a right to extract oil from beneath its own property.

As plaintiff's attorney, what rule of law would you advocate that the court adopt? How would you justify that rule in terms of both fairness and social utility?

As defendant's attorney, what rule of law would you advocate that the court adopt? How would you justify that rule in terms of both fairness and social utility?

As the judge deciding the case, what rule of law would you adopt, and why?

2. The Exxon Valdez ran aground off the coast of Alaska in 1989, resulting in one of the largest oil spills in United States history. A lawsuit was filed against Exxon representing a class of tens of thousands of individuals who made their livelihood through commercial and subsistence fishing in the area. Exxon Valdez v. Hazelwood, 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001). The suit sought damages for the destruction of the fish supply.

Use Pierson v. Post and Eliff v. Texon to argue for the plaintiffs or the defendants.