Opinion ID: 392259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Angel is Entitled to Recovery Under Commercial Law.

Text: 12 The district court found Angel entitled to recovery whether on the theory of contract, promissory estoppel, or bailment. The Government does not take issue with the substance of those doctrines. Rather, it argues that these doctrines advance policy goals which would be frustrated here by application of the established legal concepts. 13 That argument is specious. It is true, as the Government asserts, that legal doctrines develop to effectuate policy goals. But it does not follow that a court is free to ignore legal doctrine in order to serve underlying policy. If the law operated that way, there would be no need for any legal principles. Each party could argue fundamental rights, and the court could dispense intuitive justice commensurate with the equities. 14 The Government has offered no reason why the bank is not liable under commercial law. Nor has it argued that Angel does not deserve recovery under the relevant jurisdiction's commercial law. It merely asserts, without citation, that because it was engaged in a sham to catch smug- glers, normal commercial concepts are inapplicable. 15 It is hard to imagine that under any commercial law, the subjective intent of a party to commit a sham excuses him from contract responsibility for his action. In any event, the Government, as appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating the judgment below erroneous. It has failed to offer any reason to suspect that the court below reached an erroneous result under commercial law. Therefore, this ground furnishes no basis for reversal. 16