The hurdles litigants have encountered when it comes to the Endangered Species Act

• Speculative Injuries:
  • Often, the harm to a species or ecosystem is prospective or speculative. Litigants must prove a likely, not merely possible, injury.
  • This can be challenging when dealing with complex ecological systems and long-term impacts.
• Causation Challenges:
  • Proving a direct causal link between a specific action and harm to an endangered species can be difficult.
  • Environmental harm is often the result of multiple factors, making it hard to isolate the defendant's actions.
  • For example, proving that a specific development project directly caused the decline of a certain animal population, can be very hard to prove in a court of law.
• "Zone of Interests" Test:
  • Courts also apply the "zone of interests" test, which requires that the plaintiff's interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question (the ESA).
  • This can be a hurdle for litigants whose interests are seen as too remote or indirect.
• Procedural Hurdles:
  • Many ESA cases involve challenges to agency actions. Litigants must often navigate complex administrative procedures and meet strict deadlines.
  • These procedural requirements can create barriers to bringing lawsuits.

II. Contract Dispute: Verbal Agreement vs. Express Terms:

In this scenario, Party B will likely prevail. Here's why:

• Parol Evidence Rule:
  • The parol evidence rule generally prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence (such as oral agreements) to contradict or vary the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract.
  • The purpose of this rule is to ensure the certainty and stability of written contracts.
• Complete and Unambiguous Contract:
  • The question states that the contract's terms are "complete and unambiguous." This means that the contract is considered to be the final and complete expression of the parties' agreement.
  • Therefore the court will not look to outside evidence.
• Verbal Agreement Contradicts Express Terms:
  • Party A's argument relies on a verbal agreement that directly contradicts the express terms of the written contract.
  • Under the parol evidence rule, this verbal agreement is inadmissible.
• Exception Limitations:
  • While there are exceptions to the parol evidence rule (e.g., to show fraud, duress, or ambiguity), these exceptions do not appear to apply in this case.
  • The fact that the contract is unambiguous, means that those exceptions are not applicable.
• Written contracts are king:
  • Courts highly favor written contracts, as they are seen as the best evidence of the agreement between the parties.

In summary: Because the contract is complete and unambiguous, and the verbal agreement contradicts the express terms, the parol evidence rule will likely prevent Party A from introducing evidence of the verbal agreement. Therefore, Party B's argument, based on the written contract, will prevail.

Let's break down these legal questions.

I. Hurdles Litigants Face with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Standing:

"Standing" in legal terms refers to a party's ability to bring a lawsuit. To have standing, a litigant must typically show:

• Injury in Fact: They have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a concrete and particularized injury.
• Causation: The injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions.
• Redressability: The injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable court decision.

When it comes to the ESA, litigants, especially environmental groups, often face hurdles in proving these elements, particularly "injury in fact" and "causation." Here's why:

• Diffuse Injuries:
  • Environmental injuries can be diffuse and shared by many, rather than affecting a specific individual directly. For example, harm to a species or ecosystem may affect the public at large, making it difficult to show a particularized injury.
  • Courts have been hesitant to grant standing based on generalized grievances.