Ex Post Agreement

Why is the distinction between ex-ante and ex-post so important? Because it marks an important theoretical gap between coherent and ethical approaches to legal theory. Consistency, one might say, simply does not care whether A violated B`s rights for his own good. On the contrary, is a more coherent responsibility addressing the consequences of liability to those who act as A. Ex ante, a strict liability rule or a rule of negligence more effective? Deontologists, on the other hand, are very interested in who acted rightly and wrongly. In criminal law, for example, theories of the right to correct an unlawful act are associated with the ex-post perspective. A b should only be held responsible if A has done wrong. Ex Ante and Ex Post, before and after. The ex ante and ex-post perspectives are always defined in relation to an event that could occur or occurred. Think, for example, about how to react to learning a cheating spouse. The ex ante prospect, asks before fraud, before the fact that will be a spouse`s best response to fraud? From this point of view, you may want to threaten serious consequences to deter your spouse from fraud. On the other hand, the ex post perspective questions fraud, the fact. What`s the best answer? Ex Post, you could be pulled towards less harsh reactions, because it is no longer possible to deter what has already happened. Ex Ante, we may want to discourage unauthorized immigration with the threat of punishment and deportation.

Ex Post, we might prefer a path to citizenship. These perspectives oscillate in different ways with our systems three basic legislators; Juries, judges and legislators. Juries are placed in an ex-post position. They are gathered to decide what will happen to the parties to the trial after the alleged injustice. The quality of mercy resonates more often with the ex-post perspective. On the other hand, rules that are considered a precedent, future parties and current parties to the trial, are in front of them and are more inclined to adopt rules that are useful from the ex ante point of view. For example, ward Farnsworth, when he talks about the ex-Ante, ex-post, used an Illinois Supreme Court decision concerning a bank robber who went to a bank, put a gun on the head of an innocent customer and demanded that a bank employee give $5,000 to the thief or that the thief kill the customer. The cashier refused, the thief executed the client, and the client`s estate sued the bank.

The ex post perspective here focuses on the bank`s behavior after the threat. To get used to focusing on the conflicting event, you should familiarize yourself with phrases like Ex Post`s threat. Was the bank`s behaviour reasonable? Given that a threat has occurred, ex post of the threat, it seems inappropriate for the cashier as a bank representative to reject the application.