URGENT: factual vs legal impossibility Forum

[veer26]

i'm doing a paper on factual impossibility should be used as a defence for attempted crimes. I am trying to look for cases in which it says that the distinction between factual and legal impossibility is unclear to help suppport my point. Our argument is that if legal impossibility is a defence, then since factual = legal, then why shouldnt factual impossibility be a defence too? I know there are some cases that mention this, such as R v Collins [1864] 9 Cox CC 497, but I am unable to obtain a full version of the case. Can anyone help? Thanks.

[Renzo]

First to posit this is an honor code violation somewhere regarding open memo policies.

But true.

[Anonymous Loser]

Simply Googling "factual impossibility" yields a ton of COA cases that are directly on-point and readily available online. Try harder.

[Corsair]

..

[m311]

I am trying to look for cases in which it says that the distinction between factual and legal impossibility is unclear to help suppport my point.

So you start with a conclusion and THEN look for evidence for it?

You're religious aren't you.

since factual = legal

You can't use your own definitions of words.

[Snooker]

This looks kind of undergrad imo. What law student would ask this sort of question?

My view of legal vs. factual impossibility is that legal claims are fictional inventions and therefore can be totally airtight - i.e. I draw legal boundaries of some property, and make legal demarcation of where the roads are, and say if the property doesn't touch a road, the property is legally isolated from the road and therefore landlocked. But to say that a person could never possibly reach the land on foot, because there's a huge wall of cliffs, alligator infested swamps, etc is a factual impossibility because it's inductive. Certainly, scaling sheer 1000 foot cliffs with no equipment would be impossible for most of us, but does it mean that someone like Rambo could not possibly do it? This much is not clear.

Another example of legal impossibility is a contract that stipulates that your contracting company shall work every day on building construction for two years, whereas the statute of frauds requires all contracts over one year in duration to be evidenced in writing. It's legally impossible for the contract to be completed within one year, so it's under the statute of frauds. However, if you contracted to build a 80 story skyscraper on an oral contract, and no such skyscraper has ever been completed in under 4 years and every expert agrees it can't be done, it's merely factually impossible that the skyscraper can't be completed in under 4 years. Courts will actually sometimes say such a project doesn't fall under the statute of frauds because it's not legally impossible to complete the building in under a year, because there's no deduction from legal definitions going on.

The distinction becomes trickier when legal definitions are introduced into factual matters, as with the rule against perpetuities, i.e. that an 80 year old woman by legal definition can bear children, even though this is factually impossible. So we will have cases where it's factually impossible, yet legally possible, that some things can happen.

[pithypike]

You're religious aren't you.

[Cupidity]

I am trying to look for cases in which it says that the distinction between factual and legal impossibility is unclear

Except that isn't true. It is amazingly wrong. Ergo, your point is wrong. Scrap your paper or be ready for a C.

+1. It's crystal clear--can't murder a dead guy.

[Corsair]

..

[Anonymous Loser]

And conspire to.

[Hopper2]

Though what you are doing may or may not be an Honor Code violation, the line between factual and legal impossibility IS often blurred, which is why the MPC makes no effort to differentiate between the two and only defers to general culpability on the matter.

I hate TLS pomposity sometimes. If you feel the need to attack the poster, just don't post.
"Prepare for C"? Really? There actually is quite a bit of debate about this, just check Westlaw. Moron.

[mikeytwoshoes]

I hate TLS pomposity sometimes. If you feel the need to attack the poster, just don't post.
"Prepare for C"? Really? There actually is quite a bit of debate about this, just check Westlaw. Moron.

[jp0094]

understanding criminal law by dressler has a very well done section on factual impossibility, legal impossibility, and the "hybrid" type of impossibility. I'd go there.

[Anonymous Loser]

Though what you are doing may or may not be an Honor Code violation, the line between factual and legal impossibility IS often blurred, which is why the MPC makes no effort to differentiate between the two and only defers to general culpability on the matter.

I hate TLS pomposity sometimes. If you feel the need to attack the poster, just don't post.
"Prepare for C"? Really? There actually is quite a bit of debate about this, just check Westlaw. Moron.

Hate to break it to you, but you replied to a year-old thread. I'm afraid this makes you the moron. Sorry you failed so hard on your first post.

[go4hls]

Though what you are doing may or may not be an Honor Code violation, the line between factual and legal impossibility IS often blurred, which is why the MPC makes no effort to differentiate between the two and only defers to general culpability on the matter.

I hate TLS pomposity sometimes. If you feel the need to attack the poster, just don't post.
"Prepare for C"? Really? There actually is quite a bit of debate about this, just check Westlaw. Moron.

Hate to break it to you, but you replied to a year-old thread. I'm afraid this makes you the moron. Sorry you failed so hard on your first post.

Holy crap, this was a year old thread?!? Why would anyone respond to a thread this old? All the ppl involved have prolly moved on and will never see hopper's post, lol.