# Legal question: an act of goat **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 6, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634 "2011-01-06T18:03:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/41 "2011-01-12T21:42:47Z")
I think it calls for a lawsuit-about $2000/lawyer sounds about right. Shows you the idiotic depths that the law descends to.😕 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/42 "2011-01-12T21:51:56Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Princhester** , I can’t answer your question because I don’t know the legal meaning of “frustrated”. … but you are quite prepared to contradict people who do know the legal meaning of “frustrated” anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/43 "2011-01-12T21:53:27Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I think it calls for a lawsuit-about $2000/lawyer sounds about right. > Shows you the idiotic depths that the law descends to.😕 Why is it idiotic? What would you do, flip a coin? What if a goat ate your coin? ---
**Author:** ![horsetech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dec6dc/32.png) [@horsetech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horsetech)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/44 "2011-01-12T22:04:52Z")
1. I thought Hal’s expertise was limited to sheep - has he branched out to other small ruminants? 2. Clearly, in this case, the goat should be expected to cough up the money needed for the sale. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/45 "2011-01-12T22:13:59Z")
Quoth **Elendil’s Heir** : > [@](#): > > From what little we’re given to go on by the OP, my answer would be that neither owes the other anything. The plaintiff (likely the buyer) bears the burden of proof. But before you can even decide who the plaintiff would be, you have to do something to resolve the situation in the short term. Did any other money change hands? Who went home with the goat? In any short-term resolution of the matter, of course, at least one party is going to end up harmed, and that party could reasonably take the other to court, but which one of the two will that be? Quoth **Malthus** : > [@](#): > > The fact that it is the object that is being purchased which destroyed the money is a side-issue. It may be the case that the seller has some tort liability for that; probably not, though. It’s still relevant, though. If a man were walking down the street carrying a wad of cash for which he had no specific intentions, and a farmer’s goat reached over the fence and grabbed the cash, the farmer would certainly bear responsibility for his property’s actions, by virtue of his ownership. Whoever was harmed in this scenario was likewise harmed by the goat’s actions, and the goat’s owner therefore bears responsibility for that harm. The tricky bit is that it’s unclear, at the precise moment that the harm was inflicted, just who the owner of the goat was. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/46 "2011-01-12T22:54:17Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > … but you are quite prepared to contradict people who do know the legal meaning of “frustrated” anyway. Actually, I didn’t address the “frustrated” part, but rather the “why the tort is required to be settled first” part. But I can see how it wasn’t completely clear. Somebody is going home with a goat, somebody is out $100, and who takes the goat home is certainly a point of contention. Is “frustrated” meant to address whether the contract is in place and legally binding or not? > [@Bearflag70](#): > > Why is it idiotic? What would you do, flip a coin? What if a goat ate your coin? Well, it certainly sounds a bit silly to spend $2000 apiece to decide a matter of $100. Though small claims court might make some sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/47 "2011-01-12T23:21:28Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Well, it certainly sounds a bit silly to spend $2000 apiece to decide a matter of $100. Though small claims court might make some sense. It probably would be idiotic to hire a lawyer at $2,000 over a $100 dispute in most cases, but that’s being an idiotic litigant, not idiotic depths of the law. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/48 "2011-01-12T23:29:38Z")
Who owes whom what? The farmer and the customer owe the lawyers of course. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/49 "2011-01-13T14:28:53Z")
The buyer demands his money back and refuses to accept the goat. The farmer, a crafty Yankee, waits around til the goat starts to crap and sells the goat for $100K to an unsuspecting buyer who thinks he bought a goat that poops $100 bills. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/50 "2011-01-13T14:30:16Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I think it calls for a lawsuit-about $2000/lawyer sounds about right. > Shows you the idiotic depths that the law descends to.😕 Careful, the goat might eat your strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/51 "2011-01-13T15:34:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s still relevant, though. If a man were walking down the street carrying a wad of cash for which he had no specific intentions, and a farmer’s goat reached over the fence and grabbed the cash, the farmer would certainly bear responsibility for his property’s actions, by virtue of his ownership. Whoever was harmed in this scenario was likewise harmed by the goat’s actions, and the goat’s owner therefore bears responsibility for that harm. The tricky bit is that it’s unclear, at the precise moment that the harm was inflicted, just who the owner of the goat was. No, I disagree - that depends on whether the jursisdiction has strict liability legislation. Negligence doesn’t work like that, at least not here in Canada. Under the common law of negligence, what has to be demonstrated is whether any person owed a duty to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm from happening, whether that duty was breached, and whether the person claiming damages was in some sense the authour of their own misfortune (contributory negligence). In this case, the harm is the eating of the money. If the common law applies, presumably the owner of the money will argue that the farmer had a duty to secure the goat in such a manner that it could not eat the money, which duty the farmer breached, and that the harm was reasonably foreseeable because of goats’ well-known habits of eating everything. The farmer on the other hand will presumably argue that he was selling his goat in the usual and normal manner of goat-selling, that the measures he took were reasonable in the circumstances, and that the money-eating was an unforeseeable ‘act of goat’. 😉 Thus he breached no duty, is not negligent and is not liable. The ownership of the animal at the exact moment the money was eaten isn’t relevant under the common law, unless some statute says it is. It may be in some jurisdictions that persons owning animals are strictly liable for all the damages that those animals cause, but that’s a statutory change to the common law. For example, in Manitoba there is an _Animal Liability Act_ which does this, but not in Ontario. The Manitoba law expressly states it is changing the general law of negligence. > [@](#): > > 2(1) Subject to subsection (3), the owner of an animal is liable for damages resulting from harm that the animal causes to a person or to property, but in an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench to recover damages under this section, the court shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the harm. > > Liability not dependent on knowledge or fault > > 2(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), liability under this section does not depend upon the owner’s knowledge of any propensity of the animal or upon any fault or negligence by the owner. > > Defence to claim re damage by livestock > > 2(3) In an action brought under this section against the owner of livestock for damages for harm alleged to have been caused by the livestock while running at large, it is a defence for the owner to prove that > > (a) his or her control of the livestock was in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices; or > > (b) the livestock was at large due to an act of God or the act or default of a person other than > > (i) the owner, > > (ii) an employee of the owner acting within the scope of his or her employment, or > > (iii) the spouse, common-law partner or child of the owner, who is not estranged from him or her. Here, presumably the goat was not “running at large” so strict liability would apply - in Manitoba. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/52 "2011-01-20T02:13:05Z")
As for strict liability in American common law, it only applies to wild animals, or domesticated animals where the owner had knowledge of the animals propensity for violence. Otherwise the standard for domesticated animals, which includes goats, is the ordinary standard of negligence. Whether a reasonable person holding a goat would have acted the same way the defendant did in this situation. Strict liability for animals where the owner had knowledge of their violent nature is based on the theory that no one is acting reasonably when they decide to keep an animal after being warned of its violent propensity. The law varys throughout jurisdictions, but as a general standard, here’s the Restatement (Second) of Torts. **§ 518. Liability For Harm Done By Domestic Animals That Are Not Abnormally Dangerous:** Except for animal trespass, one who possesses or harbors a domestic animal that he does not know or have reason to know to be abnormally dangerous, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal if, but only if, (a) he intentionally causes the animal to do the harm, or (b) he is negligent in failing to prevent the harm. **§ 509. Harm Done By Abnormally Dangerous Domestic Animals:** (1) A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal to another, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent it from doing the harm. (2) This liability is limited to harm that results from the abnormally dangerous propensity of which the possessor knows or has reason to know. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/53 "2011-01-21T13:58:07Z")
First things first. Why did the goat go for the money if there was a tasty tort available? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/54 "2011-01-21T14:39:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Contract: sounds like there was offer an acceptance, all that was lacking is payment; so the buyer is obligated to buy the goat for $100. Not likely. Specific performance is not common in contract law. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/55 "2011-01-21T15:05:04Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Not likely. Specific performance is not common in contract law. They are obliged to buy the goat for the stated terms. If they do not, they are subject to remedies for breach of that obligation, such as damages. “Specific performance” doesn’t have the meaning I think you are attributing to it. It is an unusual remedy for breach of contract, where damages are judged insufficient. If I contract with you to buy a crate of coke cans, or a goat, or whatever, I make an enforcable bargan to buy that crate, goat or whatever. I can breach it if I want, but then you have a remedy - a case against me for breach of contract. “Specific performance” means that the court will not accept damages as an adequate remedy. Edit: though if this was a unique, money eating goat … ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/56 "2011-01-21T15:30:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > They are obliged to buy the goat for the stated terms. If they do not, they are subject to remedies for breach of that obligation, such as damages. > > “Specific performance” doesn’t have the meaning I think you are attributing to it. It is an unusual remedy for breach of contract, where damages are judged insufficient. That is exactly the meaning I used. The court isn’t going to order anyone to buy a goat or sell a goat. The only remedy that’s likely is damages. And it’s not so clear cut here, because this is an ordinary sales transaction without any written contract, in which contract formation is simultaneous with performance. In other words, from my point of view, the contract doesn’t really exist unless at least part of the transaction has taken place, either the taking of possession of the goat by the goat buyer (and standing in the goat store with a goat next to you is not likely to constitute possession … it would have to be possession in a manner that the goat seller doesn’t have easy access to the goat) or surrender of payment to the goat vendor. In this case, neither has happened, so I think that there is a viable argument that no contract has been formed at the point that the goat has eaten the cash. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/57 "2011-01-21T15:43:18Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > That is exactly the meaning I used. The court isn’t going to order anyone to buy a goat or sell a goat. The only remedy that’s likely is damages. But that’s all my brief sentence implied - that there was an obligation to buy the goat. Not that the court would order specific performance as a remedy for the breach of that obligation. You are reading too much into it. > [@](#): > > And it’s not so clear cut here, because this is an ordinary sales transaction without any written contract, in which contract formation is simultaneous with performance. In other words, from my point of view, the contract doesn’t really exist unless at least part of the transaction has taken place, either the taking of possession of the goat by the goat buyer (and standing in the goat store with a goat next to you is not likely to constitute possession … it would have to be possession in a manner that the goat seller doesn’t have easy access to the goat) or surrender of payment to the goat vendor. In this case, neither has happened, so I think that there is a viable argument that no contract has been formed at the point that the goat has eaten the cash. Disagree. Offer and acceptance is what makes a contract, verbal or not. In most ordinary sales transactions of course this does not matter, because a shop-keeper is unlikely to sue a customer who changes his mind before handing over the cash. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/58 "2011-01-21T15:53:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Disagree. Offer and acceptance is what makes a contract, verbal or not. And in an ordinary retail sales transaction, offer and acceptance is indicated by performance. Until either possession is taken or payment is tendered, there is no enforceable contract. Either party is free to back out. > [@](#): > > In most ordinary sales transactions of course this does not matter, because a shop-keeper is unlikely to sue a customer who changes his mind before handing over the cash. A vendor is unlikely to sue a customer who has changed his mind because no contract has been formed at that point. Your cause of action would have to be non-contractual, such as detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/59 "2011-01-21T16:15:22Z")
To add a new angle, won’t the Treasury Department replace damaged money? I wonder how much proof they require to do so. The polymer security threads in the new bills supposedly indicate the denomination of the bill. Might these threads survive a goat’s digestive system? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/60 "2011-01-21T16:23:25Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > And in an ordinary retail sales transaction, offer and acceptance is indicated by performance. Until either possession is taken or payment is tendered, there is no enforceable contract. Either party is free to back out. > > A vendor is unlikely to sue a customer who has changed his mind because no contract has been formed at that point. > > Your cause of action would have to be non-contractual, such as detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment. I have never heard that bthe rules for contract formation were different for “ordinary sales transactions”. Presumably, if they are, it is the result of some statutory modification to the common law. In Ontario at least, such sales fall under the _Sale of Goods Act_. This Act does not contemplate that no contract is formed until performance. [http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s1/latest/rso-1990-c-s1.html](http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s1/latest/rso-1990-c-s1.html) In the US, I understand that a similar role is taken by the UCC. Leaving aside for the moment any specialized lkaw relating to livestock. > **[U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2)** § 2-204. Formation in General. > [@](#): > > (1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including offer and acceptance, conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract, the interaction of electronic agents, and the interaction of an electronic agent and an individual. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634.md?page=4)