Michael P. Farris, Esq.
Chairman &
General Counsel

Interview with Kyle Pousson

Volume 58, Program 8 2/16/2005

Even though they developed from the same tradition, the British and American legal systems are quite different. Join Michael Farris today on Home School Heartbeat as he talks with one student who learned this firsthand.

Michael Farris:
My guest today is Kyle Pousson, one of the students from Patrick Henry College who competed in the moot court tournament at Oxford University. Kyle, welcome to the program.


Kyle Pousson:
Thank you, Dr. Farris.


Farris:
Kyle, in moot court, both sides argue a fictitious legal case before judges, and the general principles of oral argument are the same as are practiced in our Supreme Court. What was the case that you were arguing, and who created it?


Pousson:
Well, sir, the case that we argued was a British law case involving a breach of contract over the delivery of a statue. The question we debated back and forth on was what damages should be awarded to the individual whose contract was breached. This case was created by a professor at Balliol University and was based on their legal system and their legal precedent.


Farris:
What was the biggest difference in arguing the British system versus American moot court?


Pousson:
I believe the biggest difference between the British and the American systems would be a focus in the oral arguments. In the American system all of the competitors, or lawyers, turn in written arguments and their speeches are question-and-answers with the judge. In the British system, there aren't those written arguments, and so your forensics are more of a time to lay out your argument in full for the judge.


Farris:
Thank you, Kyle. I'm Mike Farris.