Legal Definitions - objection in point of law

An objection in point of law is a formal legal argument made by a defendant in a lawsuit. It occurs when the defendant accepts that all the facts presented by the plaintiff are true, but argues that even with those facts, the plaintiff has not shown a valid legal reason to win the case or receive the requested relief. Essentially, the defendant is saying, "Even if everything you claim happened, the law doesn't support your lawsuit." This type of objection focuses on the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, rather than disputing the factual allegations. It's similar to what was historically known as a demurrer.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Statute of Limitations

  Imagine a plaintiff sues a former employer for wrongful termination, claiming the event occurred ten years ago. The employer files an objection in point of law. They do not deny that the plaintiff was terminated, or even that the termination might have been unfair. Instead, they argue that the state's statute of limitations for wrongful termination claims is only two years. Therefore, even if all the plaintiff's factual allegations about the termination are true, the lawsuit was filed too late and cannot legally proceed.

  This illustrates the term because the defendant admits the facts (the termination occurred) but objects that they do not make out a legal claim because the legal deadline for filing has passed.

• Example 2: Lack of Legal Duty

  Consider a scenario where a plaintiff sues a local coffee shop, claiming they were emotionally distressed because a barista made a rude comment about their outfit. The coffee shop files an objection in point of law. They might even concede that the barista made the comment and that the plaintiff felt upset. However, they argue that the law does not impose a legal duty on a coffee shop or its employees to prevent customers from experiencing emotional distress due to rude comments, nor does such a comment typically constitute a legally recognized harm for which damages can be awarded.

  Here, the defendant accepts the factual premise (the comment, the distress) but asserts that these facts, even if true, do not establish a legally recognized cause of action for which the plaintiff can sue.

• Example 3: Illegality of Contract

  Suppose a plaintiff sues a defendant, claiming the defendant breached a contract to help them illegally smuggle goods across a border. The defendant files an objection in point of law. They might admit that they had an agreement with the plaintiff and then backed out. However, they argue that the "contract" itself is for an illegal purpose and is therefore void and unenforceable under the law. No court will enforce an agreement that facilitates illegal activity.

  This demonstrates the concept because the defendant acknowledges the factual agreement but contends that, as a matter of law, an illegal agreement cannot form the basis of a valid legal claim for breach of contract.