Unlock the secrets to acing your law exams with our deep dive into contract remedies. This episode unpacks the complexities of expectation, reliance, and restitution damages, providing you with the tools and insights needed to master these essential concepts. Whether you're a law student gearing up for exams or a legal enthusiast eager to expand your knowledge, this episode offers practical advice and expert guidance to enhance your understanding and application of contract remedies. Tune in and take your legal studies to the next level! #LawExams #ContractRemedies #LegalInsights

In this insightful episode, we delve into the intricacies of contract remedies, a crucial topic for law students preparing for exams. Join us as we explore practical strategies, common pitfalls, and expert tips to help you excel in understanding and applying contract remedies. Whether you're a seasoned law student or just starting out, this episode is packed with valuable insights to boost your exam performance. Tune in and empower your legal studies journey!

What is the primary objective of expectation damages in contract law? The primary objective of expectation damages is to place the non-breaching party in the same financial position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. It aims to deliver the "benefit of the bargain" that the injured party anticipated.

Provide an example of how incidental damages might be calculated within an expectation damages claim. If a buyer breaches a contract for custom-made goods, the seller might incur incidental damages such as storage costs for the unfinished materials, or restocking fees if they return supplies. These are direct costs incurred due to the breach, beyond the value of the promised performance itself.

Under what circumstances are reliance damages typically awarded instead of expectation damages? Reliance damages are typically awarded when expectation damages are too speculative or difficult to prove with reasonable certainty, such as in cases involving new businesses without a profit history. They are also appropriate when a contract is found to be unenforceable or in promissory estoppel cases.

Explain the "backward-looking" nature of reliance damages. Reliance damages are "backward-looking" because they aim to restore the injured party to the position they were in before the contract was made. This is achieved by reimbursing them for the expenditures they incurred in reliance on the breaching party's promise.

What is the main goal of restitution damages, and how does it differ from compensatory damages? The main goal of restitution damages is to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of the injured party. It differs from compensatory damages (like expectation or reliance) because it focuses on the gain of the defendant, rather than the loss of the plaintiff.

Describe a situation where restitution damages would be particularly advantageous for the injured party. Restitution damages would be advantageous if the injured party conferred a significant benefit upon the breaching party, but calculating lost profits (expectation damages) is impossible or results in a very low figure. For instance, if a buyer paid a large advance for goods that were never delivered, and the market price of those goods dropped significantly, restitution of the advance payment would be more beneficial than expectation damages.

What is specific performance, and when is it generally considered an appropriate remedy? Specific performance is an equitable remedy where a court orders the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations as originally agreed. It is generally considered appropriate only when monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy, most commonly in contracts for unique goods or real estate.

Explain the two-part test for determining the validity of a liquidated damages clause. For a liquidated damages clause to be valid (and not an unenforceable penalty), two elements must be met: first, the actual damages for that type of breach must have been difficult to measure at the time the contract was made; and second, the specified sum must have been a reasonable approximation of the likely actual damages at the time the contract was signed.

How does the principle of "foreseeability" (from Hadley v. Baxendale) limit the recovery of damages? The principle of foreseeability limits damages to only those losses that were reasonably foreseeable to the breaching party at the time the contract w

#LawExams #ContractRemedies #LegalEducation

Dive into the intricate world of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) with our latest episode. Designed for law students and professionals alike, this episode unpacks the UCC's foundational principles, focusing on its role in simplifying and modernizing commercial transactions. Explore key articles, from sales and secured transactions to negotiable instruments, and understand how the UCC fosters uniformity and flexibility in the ever-evolving landscape of commerce. Whether you're preparing for exams or seeking practical insights, this episode is your essential guide to mastering the UCC.

Purpose of the UCC: The UCC aims to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions. It also seeks to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement, and to make the law uniform among various jurisdictions.

Variation by Agreement: The effect of UCC provisions can be varied by agreement, unless otherwise specified. However, the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness, and care cannot be disclaimed by agreement, though parties may determine the standards for performance if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable.

Definition of "Agreement" vs. "Contract": "Agreement" refers to the actual bargain of the parties as found in their language or implied from circumstances like course of dealing or usage of trade. "Contract" is the total legal obligation that results from the parties' agreement as affected by the UCC and other applicable rules of law.

Good Faith Obligation: Every contract or duty within Subtitle I imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement. This means parties must act with honesty in fact and, in the case of a merchant, observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Formation of a Sales Contract: A contract for the sale of goods can be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties. Even if one or more terms are left open, a contract does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties intended to make one and there is a reasonably certain basis for an appropriate remedy.

Statute of Frauds for Sales: A contract for the sale of personal property is generally not enforceable beyond $5,000 in amount or value unless there is a writing indicating a contract for sale, stating a price, reasonably identifying the subject matter, and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. This specific rule does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods covered by Article 2.

Merchantability Warranty: If the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of the kind, an implied warranty of merchantability is given, meaning the goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, among other requirements. This includes the serving of food or drink for value.

Holder in Due Course Requirements: To be a holder in due course, a person must take the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or has any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person. These elements ensure the holder is a legitimate and unsuspecting party.

Security Interest Definition: A "security interest" is defined as an interest in personal property or fixtures that secures payment or performance of an obligation. A seller's retention or reservation of title to goods after shipment or delivery to the buyer is limited in effect to a reservation of a security interest.

Scope of Article 9 (Secured Transactions): Article 9 applies to any transaction intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures (including goods, documents, instruments, accounts, contract rights, chattel paper, general intangibles) and to any sale of accounts, contract rights, or chattel paper. It broadly covers various forms of security agreements.

These sources primarily explain legal doctrines that can excuse contractual performance when unforeseen events occur, especially in the absence of a force majeure clause. They define impossibility, where performance is literally unachievable, and impracticability, which applies when performance becomes excessively difficult or expensive. The concept of frustration of purpose is also discussed, excusing performance when the contract's fundamental reason is destroyed. These principles, rooted in common law and codified in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), emphasize that the excusing event must be unforeseeable and not a risk assumed by the parties, often requiring objective impossibility rather than mere financial hardship.

Objective impossibility means no one could possibly perform the contract due to an unforeseen event (e.g., destruction of the subject matter). Subjective impossibility, in contrast, refers to a particular party's personal inability or difficulty to perform (e.g., lack of funds), which typically does not excuse performance.

New York law applies impossibility narrowly, requiring performance to be objectively impossible. It was deemed easiest for "non-essential" businesses forced to shut down 100% due to Gov. Cuomo's orders, but harder for service businesses able to work remotely, considering the temporary nature and availability of alternative means.

UCC § 2-615 states that a seller of goods is not in breach if performance is made "impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption" or by compliance with a government regulation. It is essentially a codification of impossibility for goods, often applied more broadly as commercial impracticability.

A classic example of frustration of purpose is renting an apartment to view a specific parade, and then the parade is canceled. Performance (renting the apartment) is still possible, but the fundamental reason for entering the contract (watching the parade) has been destroyed, making the performance worthless to the renter.

A force majeure clause allows parties to predefine specific events (like natural disasters or pandemics) that will excuse contractual performance. It clarifies and can expand or narrow the scope of excusable events beyond what common law doctrines like impossibility or impracticability might cover, explicitly allocating risk.

Courts are reluctant to excuse performance due to mere cost increases because commercial contracts are generally intended to cover such foreseeable market risks. Only extraordinary and disproportionate cost increases, far outside the normal range and unforeseeable, might qualify as true impracticability.

To successfully assert commercial impracticability, a party must demonstrate that a supervening, unforeseen event occurred after contract formation, that this event was not caused by them, that it made performance extremely difficult or burdensome, and that its non-occurrence was a basic assumption of the contract.

Under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261, a party's duty to render performance is discharged if, after the contract is made, their performance is made impracticable without their fault by an event whose non-occurrence was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.

The absence of a force majeure clause might strengthen an argument for common law defenses because it suggests that the parties did not explicitly allocate the risk of events like a pandemic in their contract. This leaves room for courts to apply general legal principles regarding unforeseen circumstances.

Two key practical steps are to carefully examine existing contracts to understand obligations and any force majeure provisions, and to communicate proactively and regularly with contract partners about disruptions, potential limitations, and ongoing updates.

A breach of contract occurs when a party to a valid agreement fails to perform their obligations without a legal excuse. A party can commit a breach through non-performance, where they simply do not do what was promised, or through defective/partial performance, where they do something but not in the agreed-upon way.

A minor breach is insignificant and allows the contract's overall purpose to be fulfilled, requiring the non-breaching party to continue performance while suing for damages. A material breach, however, is so severe it defeats the contract's essential purpose, allowing the non-breaching party to terminate the contract and sue for full damages.

Anticipatory breach occurs when a party clearly indicates they will not perform their future obligations before performance is due. The non-breaching party can immediately treat it as a breach and sue, or they can wait for the performance date, though the latter carries the risk of losing the right to terminate if performance eventually occurs.

A failure of condition is when a prerequisite event for a party's duty to perform does not occur, thus discharging that duty without the party being at fault. A breach of contract, conversely, involves a failure to perform a duty that was owed, indicating a wrongful non-compliance with the contract terms.

Frustration of purpose excuses performance when an unforeseen event destroys the underlying reason for entering the contract, even if performance remains technically possible. For example, if you rent a room specifically to watch a parade, and the parade is canceled (frustration), it differs from the building burning down (impossibility).

The Perfect Tender Rule (UCC § 2-601) states that a buyer can reject goods if they fail to conform to the contract in any respect. A common exception is the seller's right to cure (UCC § 2-508), allowing them to correct defective performance within the contract time or under certain conditions.

The main objective of compensatory damages is to place the non-breaching party in the financial position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. This aims to protect the injured party's expectation interest by covering losses incurred due to the breach.

A court might order specific performance when monetary damages are inadequate to compensate the injured party, such as in cases involving unique goods (e.g., rare art, custom-made items) or real estate. This remedy ensures the aggrieved party receives the exact performance promised in the contract.

The duty to mitigate damages requires the non-breaching party to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses after a breach occurs. This concept is important because it prevents economic waste and ensures that damages awarded are only for unavoidable losses, encouraging efficient behavior.

Restitution, as a remedy for breach of contract, aims to restore any benefit conferred by the non-breaching party to the breaching party. It primarily prevents unjust enrichment, ensuring that a party does not unfairly profit from another's loss or from an unenforceable contract.

These sources collectively illuminate the Parol Evidence Rule, a fundamental principle in contract law that generally restricts the use of extrinsic evidence—such as prior oral agreements or discussions—to contradict or modify the terms of a final written contract. They explain that the rule aims to promote finality, certainty, and reliability in agreements, emphasizing the importance of integration, which refers to whether the written contract is considered the complete and exclusive expression of the parties' intent. While highlighting the rule's common law origins and its more liberal application under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for goods, the texts also detail crucial exceptions allowing extrinsic evidence for purposes like proving contract defenses, clarifying ambiguities, establishing conditions precedent, or demonstrating subsequent modifications or collateral agreements. Ultimately, understanding this rule is crucial for drafting, interpreting, and litigating contracts, as it dictates what external information a court will consider when determining contractual obligations.

The primary purpose of the Parol Evidence Rule is to ensure finality, certainty, and reliability in written contracts. It limits the admissibility of extrinsic evidence (oral or written statements made prior to or contemporaneous with the contract) that would contradict or modify the terms of a written agreement intended by the parties as a final expression.

"Parol evidence" refers to oral or written statements made before or at the time the written contract is executed. "Subsequent modifications," however, are agreements made after the written contract is executed, and the Parol Evidence Rule does not bar their admission.

A "partially integrated" agreement is one where the writing is final as to some terms but not the entire agreement. A "completely integrated" agreement, conversely, is intended as the exclusive and complete expression of all terms, meaning it is the sole source of the contract's terms.

A merger clause is a provision stating the contract is the complete and exclusive agreement. It serves as strong evidence of complete integration, often dispositive under the "four corners" approach, but in modern "contextual" jurisdictions, it may only create a rebuttable presumption and is not always conclusive.

Under the "four corners rule," courts determine if a contract is integrated by examining only the language within the written document itself. They do not look to any external evidence to ascertain the parties' intent regarding the writing's finality or completeness.

Under the UCC, for contracts involving the sale of goods, terms can be explained or supplemented by evidence of "trade usage" or "course of dealing," even if the writing is unambiguous and fully integrated. This approach is more liberal than common law, recognizing the importance of commercial context.

Parol evidence would be admissible to prove a condition precedent if, for example, parties orally agreed that a written contract for a property sale would only become binding if a specific zoning permit was approved, even if this condition wasn't in the written contract. This evidence shows the contract's effectiveness was conditional.

Evidence of fraud is an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule because the rule is intended to uphold valid contracts, not to shield fraudulent behavior. Allowing evidence of fraud permits courts to determine if the agreement itself is void or voidable due to fundamental impropriety.

If a contract is "partially integrated," extrinsic evidence that contradicts the written terms is generally prohibited. However, evidence of consistent additional terms—those that supplement or add to the written terms without negating them—is typically allowed.

For parties, the Parol Evidence Rule emphasizes the critical importance of careful drafting to ensure all essential terms are included in the written document. It also highlights the need for clear integra

These sources collectively explain the Statute of Frauds, a legal principle originating in English law that mandates certain types of contracts be in writing and signed to be enforceable, primarily to prevent fraud and misunderstandings. Key contract categories falling under this statute include agreements for real estate interests, those impossible to perform within one year, promises to pay another's debt (suretyship), contracts made in consideration of marriage, and, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sales of goods valued at $500 or more. While the statute generally requires a written memorandum identifying the subject matter, essential terms, and signed by the party to be charged, exceptions like partial performance (especially in land contracts), promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance), and admissions in court exist to prevent injustice. Modern legal developments, including the E-SIGN Act and UETA, acknowledge the validity of electronic signatures and communications in satisfying these writing requirements.

What is the primary purpose of the Statute of Frauds? The primary purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury by requiring certain significant contracts to be evidenced by a writing. This ensures that serious agreements are properly documented, reducing the likelihood of false claims or misunderstandings about whether a contract was formed.

Name and briefly describe two categories of contracts that fall under the common law Statute of Frauds. Two categories are contracts for the sale of land and contracts that cannot be performed within one year. Contracts for the sale of land include interests like mortgages, leases over a year, and easements. The one-year rule applies to agreements objectively impossible to complete within a year from their making.

Explain the "one-year rule" as it applies to the Statute of Frauds. What is the key test courts use for this rule? The "one-year rule" states that contracts that cannot be fully performed within one year from their making must be in writing. The key test courts use is the "possibility test," meaning if there's even the slightest theoretical possibility the contract could be completed within a year, it falls outside the statute and doesn't require a writing.

Under the UCC, what is the monetary threshold for contracts for the sale of goods to fall within the Statute of Frauds? Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), contracts for the sale of goods must be evidenced by a writing if the price of the goods is $500 or more. Oral agreements for goods valued at less than $500 are generally enforceable without exception.

Describe the "part performance" doctrine as an exception to the Statute of Frauds for land contracts. The "part performance" doctrine allows for the enforcement of an oral contract for the sale of land despite the lack of a writing. This exception applies if the buyer has taken possession of the property, made significant improvements, or paid a substantial part of the purchase price, showing clear reliance on the oral agreement.

What does it mean for a contract to be "unenforceable" due to the Statute of Frauds, as opposed to "void"? An "unenforceable" contract means that it cannot be proven or enforced in a court of law if the statute is raised as a defense, but it is not inherently invalid or "void." The underlying agreement still exists, but the legal system won't compel its performance due to the lack of required formalities.

How can an email potentially satisfy the "writing" and "signature" requirements of the Statute of Frauds? An email can satisfy these requirements if it identifies the subject matter and essential terms, and if it contains an electronic signature or symbol (like a typed name, letterhead, or even an authenticated email address) that demonstrates the sender's intent to authenticate or sign the record. Modern acts like ESign confirm the validity of electronic signatures.

Explain the "main purpose doctrine" as

These sources collectively explain the fundamental concept of consideration in American contract law, defining it as a bargained-for exchange of legal value necessary for a promise to be enforceable. They differentiate it from illusory promises or gifts, which lack a genuine mutual obligation, and clarify that courts generally do not assess the adequacy of consideration as long as it exists and is not a sham, sometimes using the metaphor of a "peppercorn". The texts also highlight exceptions to the consideration requirement, notably promissory estoppel, which allows enforcement when one party reasonably relies on another's promise to their detriment, and address the pre-existing duty rule, detailing how modifications to existing contracts typically require new consideration or fall under specific exceptions like those found in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

A gratuitous promise is a one-sided promise made without any expectation of a return promise or performance and is generally not legally enforceable. A contractual promise, however, is part of a bargained-for exchange, involving mutual consideration, and is therefore legally enforceable.

Consideration is a thing of legal value (money, property, an act, or forbearance) promised or exchanged between parties that binds them together in a contractual agreement. It serves as the mutual exchange that makes a promise enforceable by law.

Courts generally do not inquire into the adequacy or relative value of consideration, focusing instead on whether any legal value was genuinely bargained for. For instance, paying a "peppercorn" (a nominal amount) for something of much greater value can still be valid consideration if it was truly exchanged.

Past consideration is not valid because it refers to something given or performed before the contract is established; it was not bargained for or induced by the promisor's current promise. For consideration to be valid, it must be current or future and mutually agreed upon.

The pre-existing duty rule states that a promise to perform an act that one is already legally obligated to do cannot serve as consideration for a new promise. Its main purpose is to prevent coercion and ensure that any new agreement involves a genuine, new exchange of value.

An illusory promise is a commitment that appears to be a promise but does not actually bind the promisor to any specific action or obligation, often because they retain unfettered discretion. It fails to create a binding contract due to a lack of mutual obligation and real commitment.

The purpose of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is to allow for the enforcement of a promise, even without traditional consideration, when injustice can only be avoided by doing so. It protects parties who have reasonably relied on a promise to their detriment.

Three essential elements for promissory estoppel are: a clear and definite promise, reasonable reliance on that promise by the promisee, and a substantial detriment incurred by the promisee as a result of that reliance.

Under promissory estoppel, courts typically award reliance damages, which aim to restore the aggrieved party to the position they were in before the promise was made. Expectation damages, which would give the benefit of the bargain, are generally not available, as the doctrine focuses on preventing injustice due to reliance rather than enforcing the full promise.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), particularly for sales of goods (UCC § 2-209), permits contract modifications without requiring new consideration, provided that the modifications are made in good faith. This offers a more flexible framework compared to traditional common law.

These sources collectively explain the foundational principles of contract law, particularly focusing on offer and acceptance. They detail the six-step process for drafting effective legal contracts, from determining substance and analyzing the audience to organizing, writing, designing, and evaluating the document. The texts also differentiate between unilateral and bilateral contracts, clarifying how each is formed and accepted, with special attention to scenarios like the "Battle of the Forms" and the mailbox rule. Furthermore, the documents highlight the legal requirements and best practices for contract clauses, emphasizing clarity, consistency, and adherence to legal standards to prevent disputes and ensure enforceability.

The "objective theory of assent" means that courts interpret a party's intent to contract based on their outward words and conduct, not their hidden subjective thoughts. This is important because it allows parties to rely on external manifestations of agreement, promoting certainty and predictability in contract formation.

An "offer" is a definite proposal showing a clear intention to be bound upon acceptance, like "I'll sell my car for $5,000." An "invitation to treat" is merely an invitation to negotiate or make an offer, such as goods displayed with a price tag in a store.

In a "unilateral contract," acceptance occurs through the completion of a specific act or performance, with only one promise made (e.g., a reward for finding a lost pet). In contrast, a "bilateral contract" involves an exchange of promises between two parties, and acceptance is typically a promise in return.

The "Mailbox Rule" states that an acceptance is effective the moment it is dispatched (e.g., mailed), rather than when received by the offeror. A key exception is that it generally does not apply to option contracts, where acceptance must be received to be effective.

A "counteroffer" is a response to an offer that materially changes its original terms. Under common law's "mirror image rule," a counteroffer automatically terminates the original offer, meaning it can no longer be accepted.

An offer can be terminated by operation of law due to the death or mental incapacity of either party, the destruction of the contract's subject matter, or if the subject matter becomes illegal before acceptance.

Under UCC § 2-205, a "firm offer" can be made irrevocable if it is made by a merchant, in a signed writing, and assures that the offer will be held open for a stated period, not exceeding three months.

The "Battle of the Forms" arises when parties exchange standard business forms with conflicting terms. UCC § 2-207 attempts to form a contract despite non-matching terms, unlike common law's "mirror image rule" which would treat such a response as a counteroffer.

Recitals, or premises, state background information that forms the foundation for the contract. Their purposes include clarifying the parties' intent (e.g., reasons for entering the contract) and bolstering the importance of certain conditions.

Proper punctuation is crucial in contract drafting because incorrect or misplaced punctuation can create ambiguity, leading to different interpretations of contract terms and potentially resulting in costly legal disputes, as demonstrated by cases involving significant financial losses due to a single comma.

This podcast explores the legal concept of standing, which dictates who is eligible to bring a lawsuit before a court. They highlight that standing typically requires a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by a court, as emphasized in U.S. federal law. However, the articles also discuss challenges and criticisms of this doctrine, including concerns about limiting access to justice for public interest issues, inconsistent applications in various legal contexts like reproductive rights or anti-corruption efforts, and the debate around third-party or public interest standing in different jurisdictions. Potential solutions are also considered, such as using institutional plaintiffs or expanding standing through legislative action.

The fundamental purpose of the standing doctrine is to limit federal courts to adjudicating "cases or controversies" involving actual injuries. It upholds the separation of powers by preventing courts from issuing advisory opinions or overstepping into political or hypothetical grievances.

"Injury-in-fact" requires a plaintiff to show they have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent. "Concrete" means the injury is real, even if intangible (like reputational harm), while "particularized" means it affects the plaintiff individually, not merely as part of the general public.

The "causation" element ensures the alleged injury is directly attributable to the defendant's conduct, and not to actions by independent third parties not involved in the case. This establishes a clear and logical link, preventing speculative claims where the defendant's role in the harm is unclear.

"Redressability" means it must be likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the plaintiff's injury. It does not require that the court's judgment completely eliminate the harm; incremental redress is sufficient to satisfy this requirement.

Prudential standing requirements are judicially created limits on federal court jurisdiction, such as prohibitions on third-party standing or generalized grievances. Unlike the constitutional elements, Congress can modify or override these prudential doctrines through legislation.

The general rule is that federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government expenditures based solely on their taxpayer status because the injury is too speculative and widely shared. A narrow exception exists for challenges under the Establishment Clause to specific congressional taxing and spending measures.

Associational standing allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members if its members would individually have standing, the interests are relevant to the organization's purpose, and the claim or relief does not require individual member participation. This enables collective representation for shared harms within a group.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez clarified that for intangible harms to be "concrete," they must have a "close historical or common-law analogue." This limits Congress's ability to define new intangible harms for standing purposes, leading to continued ambiguity and circuit splits on how to apply this historical analogy test.

State standing is often easier to establish due to the "special solicitude" afforded to states as sovereigns and their broad array of proprietary and quasi-sovereign interests. States can sue parens patriae to protect the health and well-being of their residents, unlike private citizens who must show a particularized injury.

Qui tam actions allow private individuals (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government for injuries suffered by the government, often in exchange for a financial reward. This expands standing by effectively assigning the government's injury-in-fact to the relator, rooted in a long historical practice.