Please cite to the original publication
THE first article of this series purported to be an application of legal method to the problem of debiting direct discounts presented by Callaham v. Bank of Anderson,' Delavo v. Equitable Trust Co., 2 and Goldstein v. Jefferson Title & Trust Co.3 The second, attempting a critical evaluation of the first, took the first to be typical of the intellectual procedure of lawyers when venturing a forecast of future decisions, and concluded that its implicit forecast was an intuitive judgment and its pretended application of legal method a post-rationalization. Because in elaborating a post-rationalization there is a semblance of the application of legal method to the problem, that method is thought of as a sufficient means to forecasting. Because lawyers think they have an adequate method, they continue to rely exclusively on intuition and have not even attempted to devise methodical approaches to litigation-situations which if successful would limit the sphere of intuition. It was urged that a methodical study should be undertaken and that it should be directed at cultural factors. A method for the study of the causal relation betveen decisions, on the one hand, and the type and degree by which the behavior of the litigants ("the. facts") deviates from the regularly followed behavior patterns, on the other, was outlined. It was proposed to apply it to "the facts" of the three principal cases and the comparable behavior sequences in the contemporary culture of South Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania. This article is a report of the study of Connecticut patterns undertaken in preparation for the necessary investigations of the relevant institutions in those states.
Date of Authorship for this Version