(iii) A.L. Goodhart, The Foundations of Tortious Liability (1938) 2 Modern Law Review 1; (iv) Glanville L. Williams, 7 (1939) CLJ 111; (v) Winfield, P.H., The Foundation of Liability in Tort, (1927) 27 Col. L.R. 1;
63 (vi) Allen, C.K., Legal Morality and Ius Abutendi (1924) 40 Law Quarterly Review 164; (vii) Ames, J.B., How Far An Act may be a Tort because of the Wrongful Motive of the Actor, (1905) 18 Harvard Law Review 411; General Critique of Both Schools Professor Glanville Williams provides what he calls a "middle Position" as an attempt to reconcile the two opposing schools of thought. He begins his reconciliation by asking a question: Suppose there is a case of first impression (Ie, a case on a novel issue which has never previously been decided by the Courts), there is no legal argument given by counsel, but there is proof that the plaintiff was injured. Does the school espousing the General Principle on Foundations of Tortious liability (because of plaintiff's visible injury) say judgment should go in favour of the plaintiff? Or does the school espousing Pigeon Holes Theory say judgment be entered in favour of the defendant (because the case is not covered by any known Tort). Glanville William's plain answer to the question posed is: Court is presumed to know the law with or without the assistance of the Counsels. The Court will try
